Antisemitism: A Study Of Orthodox Jewish

Communities In North London

Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy at the University of West London

by

Maya Flax

University of West London

Supervisors: Professor Joelle Fanghanel,

Professor Karim Murji

DECEMBER 2018

1 Abstract

Records of antisemitic incidents in the UK have reached an all-time high in the last 3-5 years. I have used antisemitism to mean in this study: any form of hostility or prejudice towards Jews based on their identity. The main objective of this study is to explore a section of the Jewish community, which has been marginalised in research on antisemitism: The Orthodox Jewish community.

Being most visible, as identifiable Jews, within the Jewish community, they are also the ones most frequently targeted.

Drawing on qualitative data resulting from 28 interviews with Orthodox Jewish individuals as well as five focus groups with key stakeholder, this thesis explored the lived experienced of antisemitism within the Orthodox Jewish community. It investigated the types of antisemitic incidents, the impacts and meaning which participants attached to these incidents, the perceptions of antisemitism, the coping mechanisms which were adopted in order to respond to the climate of antisemitism and the perceptions of agencies which respond to antisemitism.

The thesis generated four main findings. First, the pervasive nature of antisemitism and its prevalence within the lives of Orthodox Jews. Second, the awareness that there is a resurgence of antisemitism and that there has been a shift in its manifestation, making it more institutionalised and therefore powerful. Third, that despite the high prevalence rate of incidents among the community, most respondents chose to normalise and accept the victimisation.

My thesis proposes that the reasons respondents were able to show agency and to accept the incidents is due to their strong religious identity and their close

2 community ties. Finally, this study offers recommendations to support the

Orthodox Jewish community; to address in a practical way some remediable issues uncovered by this study.

3 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank both my supervisors Professor Joelle Fanghanel and

Professor Karim Murji for their meticulous feedback and constant support. I am indebted to Professor Joelle Fanghanel, that despite her own tight schedule, for pushing me to perform to the best of my abilities and for ensuring that all the i’s have been dotted and the t’s crossed.

I am also thankful to Maria Pennells, the senior administrative officer of the graduate school who regularly ‘mothers’ all of the graduates. She has given me moral support and has encouraged me to persevere throughout the process. I look forward to reading your PhD one day, on the experiences of PhD students.

I am thankful to my constantly supportive parents who have enshrined in me a strong work ethics and have cheered me along from across the ocean. I am indebted to my older loyal brother, without whom this journey would not have been possible.

I am particularly thankful to my husband Richard, who has been by my side throughout this process. Deciding to embark on this journey whilst raising our

5 beautiful children, was not going to be a walk-in-the-park and it was only made possible because of him. When the pressures of work, family life and completing this degree got on top of me, he did whatever he could to lift the load off. Richi, this thesis should have both of our names on it.

4 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 9

1.1 Orthodox Jews: prime targets 12

1.2 The purpose and aims of this research 14

1.3 Who is the Orthodox Jewish community? 16

1.4 Community-based organisations 18

1.5 The research questions 23

1.6 Public climate of antisemitism 24

1.7 Research paradigm 32

1.8 Theoretical framework 35

1.9 Conclusion 42

Outline of chapters 44

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 47

2.1 Overview of hate crime and antisemitism 48

2.2 The extent of hate crime and antisemitism 65

2.3 Perceptions of antisemitism in the literature 78

2.4 Impact of hate crime 85

2.5 Coping mechanisms 96

2.6 The concept of victim 102

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 109

3.1 A qualitative research framework 109

3.2 The sample 111

3.3 Research ethics 115

3.4 Access to respondents 116

3.5 Research design 120

5 3.6 Gathering and analysing data 126

3.7 Being an insider 129

3.8 Conclusion 133

Research questions explained 134

CHAPTER 4 TYPES OF ANTISEMITIC INCIDENTS and IMMEDIATE RESPONSE 135

4.1 Introduction 132

4.2 Categories of antisemitism 137 Category 1 - Physical attacks and assaults 142 Category 2 - Verbal assault / hostility 147 Category 3 - Discrimination 155 Category 4 - Prejudicial attitudes / stereotyping 163 Category 5 - Distribution of material 167

4.3 Vicarious victimisation 170

4.4 Immediate response to the incident 175

4.5 Conclusion 188

CHAPTER 5 PERCEPTIONS OF ANTISEMITISM 190

5.1 Introduction 190

5.2 The scale and significance of antisemitism 191

5.3 Contributory factors to respondents’ perceptions 220

5.4 Conclusion 244

CHAPTER 6 COPING MECHANISMS 246

6.1 Introduction 246

6.2 Normalisation 251 6.2a Religious coping 254 6.2b Close community ties 259

6.3 Preventative measures 261 6.3.1 Long-term measures 262 6.3.2 Short-term measures 263

6.4 Victimhood 280

6

6.5 Conclusion 284

CHAPTER 7 UNDER REPORTING and PERCEPTIONS OF AGENCIES 285

7.1 Introduction 285

7.2 The police 286

7.3 Community Security Trust 301

7.4 Shomrim 306

7.5 Conclusion 314

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION 316

8.1 Introduction 316

8.2 Brief Overview of analysis 318

8.3 Similarities with previous research 322

8.4 Differences with previous research and 323 original contribution 8.4.1 Normalisation 323 8.4.2 Strong religious background and social cohesion 328

8.5 Suggested recommendations 329 8.5.1 Knowledge, data and resource sharing 331 8.5.2 Orthodox Jewish community liaison officer 334 8.5.3 Encourage reporting 335

8.6 Conclusion 337

List of Tables Table 1 Recorded antisemitic hate crime data in UK 72 Table 2 Common coping mechanisms and sources 97 Table 3 Interview respondents’ characteristics 122 Table 4 Interview respondents’ profiles 123 Table 5 Focus group participants’ profiles 126 Table 6 Research questions explained 134

List of Figures Figure 1 CST’s Typology of Antisemitic Incidents 75

List of Diagrams Diagram 1 Typology of Antisemitic Incidents 141 Diagram 2 Degrees of Insecurity 193

7 Diagram 3 Coping Mechanisms 250 Diagram 4 Suggested recommendations 331

List of Appendices Appendix 1 Participant recruitement letter 339 Appendix 2. Consent form for interviewees and participant 341 information sheet Appendix 3. Example of focus group consent form 344 Appendix 4. Semi-structured interview questions 346 Appendix 5. Example of focus group schedule of questions 349 Appendix 6. Terminology 351 Appendix 7. Vignettes of participants 352 Appendix 8. List of abbreviations 363

References 364 Table of Cases 420

8 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This thesis will investigate the hate crime of antisemitism against the Orthodox

Jewish community in London. The Association of Chief Police Officers recently updated the definition of hate crime to be: ‘any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by hostility or prejudice’ (College of Policing, 2014, p.3). Antisemitism, which is a religious or ethical intolerance, is one form of hate crime, and is defined by the International

Holocaust of Remembrance Alliance as:

A certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities (IHRA, 2016).

According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), hate crime has been on the rise (Home Office, 2017) and antisemitism is no exception. The resurgence of antisemitism within the UK is documented among police and communal records (Home Office, 2016; Community Security Trust, 2017).

These records show the prevalence of antisemitic victimisation among the

Orthodox Jewish community and yet the everyday experiences of the Orthodox

Jewish community appear marginalised in academic literature. This thesis aims to include voices of Orthodox Jewish individuals in the developing literature

(see literature review chapter).

The introductory chapter will first reveal what is being published in the British media about antisemitism and focus on the reasons and the importance of conducting this research. The chapter will then discuss who the Orthodox

Jewish community is within London and their established infrastructures. After identifying gaps in the literature, the third part of this chapter will lay out the

9 research questions. The fourth section will seek to identity the spheres where antisemitism is most noticeable. Finally, this chapter will address the theoretical frameworks that underpin this thesis.

Reports of anti-Jewish sentiment and concerns of rising antisemitism dominated the headlines at the time of this research (2015-2018). ‘Attacks against Jewish people in the UK have reached ’unprecedented’ levels, new figures show’ (Morgan, 2017). ‘One in three British Jews consider leaving the

UK fearing hate crime, poll finds (Nelson, 2017). A ‘quarter of Jewish students in the UK fear antisemitic attacks on campus’ (Kentish, 2017). The Chief Rabbi said in The Telegraph that ‘Labour has a “severe” problem with anti-semitism’

(Dominiczak, 2016).

The Community Security Trust (CST), a charitable organisation that represents and advises the Jewish community on matters of antisemitism, security, and terrorism, has recorded the highest level of reported antisemitic crimes since statistics were first assembled 33 years ago. The most recent Antisemitic

Incidents Report (CST, 2017) showed similar trends, with an unprecedented number of antisemitic incidents rising to 1382 incidents, a 3% increase from the previous year (CST, 2017). CST Chief Executive David Delew said, ‘Anti-

Semitism is having an increasing impact on British Jews and hatred and anger that lies behind it is spreading’ (Morgan, 2017).

Porat and Wistrich have claimed that a new wave of antisemitism has emerged since the second Intifada (a period of intensified Israeli–Palestinian violence during the second Palestinian uprising against Israel) in 2000 (Tommer

10 and Fleischer, 2013). Some of the literature on antisemitic hate crime argues that today’s antisemitic hate crime is triggered by the political frustrations prevailing within the Middle East (CST, 2014), but others, such as Porat and

Wistrich, claim that this rationale is just a camouflage for antisemitism (Tommer and Fleischer, 2013). In fact, this trend of criticising actions in Israel has been defined by some as ‘the new antisemitism’ (Taguieff, 2004; Iganski, 2013). It is the concept that what is purported to be criticisms of Israel is in fact antisemitism.

Statistics in the UK and France show clear patterns of increasing hostility

(Wistrich, 2008). Abraham Foxman, the leader of the US-based Anti-

Defamation League, described this as ‘old poison in a new bottle’ (Foxman,

2007) and the previous UK Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, warned of a

‘tsunami of antisemitism’ sweeping the world (Hastings, 2005).

How are these statistics impacting the Jewish community? With the onset of the Israel–Gaza war, the summer of 2014 brought about heightened fears of antisemitism. Hilary Freeman, in The Mail on Sunday (2014), reported a host of antisemitic encounters within the media relating to Gaza stating, ‘in the past month […] I and many of my friends have begun to question whether, as Jews, we are really as safe and accepted in this country as we previously believed’.

One columnist reported that among British Jews in London, ‘many are just scared – scared not just about events in Gaza, but events in Europe’ (Barnett,

2014). The CST produced The Antisemitic Discourse Report (2014), which described having received an unprecedented number of telephone calls and emails from Jewish members of the public expressing heightened anxiety and

11 concern regarding the sheer number of antisemitic incidents taking place in the

UK and France.

Members of the Jewish community within the UK have felt this increase in antisemitic incidents. The Jewish Policy Research conducted a survey of British

Jews, which found that nearly 70% of respondents perceive that antisemitism had risen in the past five years, and over 25% said that it had ‘increased a lot’

(JPR, 2014, p.13). The Campaign against Antisemitism (CAA) commissioned by the British government to conduct a year-long study of 10,567 British Jews.

The research suggested that one in every three Jews had considered leaving

Britain in the past two years because they no longer feel safe in Britain, and that only 59 per cent of Britain’s 270,000 Jewish people feel welcome in the UK

(CAA, 2017, pp.12-13). Antisemitism is on the rise, as are levels of anxiety.

1.1 Orthodox Jews: Prime Targets

Within the Jewish community, which is varied, members of the Orthodox Jewish community are particular targets. The Jewish community is diverse and ranges from the ultra-Orthodox, Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Traditional, Reform and to those who identify themselves as only ‘culturally’ Jewish. Orthodox Jews form 16% of the overall Jewish British Population (Census, 2011). Part of what distinguishes Orthodox Jews from other Jews is their high visibility. An

Orthodox Jewish man wears a black hat or a kapple (skullcap), which is a clear identifying mark. He is likely to have a beard and dress in a dark suit with a white shirt. An Orthodox Jewish woman would stand out less, but is still somewhat recognisable in that she would wear some sort of head covering, be it a scarf or a wig, and be fully modest in her sense of dress.

12

It is this high visibility that makes them more likely to be the victims of antisemitism. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA,

2012) data distinguished between antisemitic attacks on Orthodox and non-

Orthodox Jews, contending that antisemitism is much more likely to be targeted at people who are visibly Jewish, have strong Jewish identity and 'make it known' that they are Jewish. A person who does not look like a Jew and does not 'profess' to be one, is far less likely to be a target of hate crime, as noted by

Boyd and Staetsky (2015). To illustrate, 41% of Orthodox Jews experienced antisemitic harassment in the previous 12 months of this survey compared to

17% of non-Orthodox Jews. Moreover, ‘over half of Orthodox Jews were worried about being a victim of an antisemitic act in the next twelve months

(54%), compared to 24% of non-Orthodox Jews’ (Boyd and Staetsky, 2015, p.

29).

The 2015 Metropolitan Police figures show that of the 483 antisemitic incidents reported in London, 122 were in Stamford Hill, one of the two main Orthodox

Jewish neighbourhoods. Some recent examples of antisemitic incidents in

Stamford Hill include the targeting of women and children, and other violent assaults. Vulnerable victims are being physically and verbally attacked. In

November 2017, an elderly Jewish woman had her head smashed into a brick wall in; the assailant shouted ‘Zyd’, which is Polish for ‘Jew’. Children are also being targeted. In August 2017, an 8-year-old Orthodox Jewish boy was beaten up on his way home, and an 11-year-old boy was ordered to remove his skullcap or get beaten up. Moreover, vulnerable women are targeted. In August

2017 a group of women who were chased by teenage girls hurling racist slurs.

13 References to the Holocaust are made as part of the abuse and in August 2017 a woman was confronted by a man giving a Nazi salute and in December 2017, a driver shouted ‘Hitler was a great man’ to passers-by on the street (The

Jerusalem Post, 2017). Some incidents are more violent in nature and in June

2017, dozens of Muslim youths chased Jews with bats, knives and machetes, stabbing one person in the process (EU Times, 2017). These examples are a few among many. Regarding the increased rate of such events, Rabbi Herschel

Gluck OBE, president of the Stamford Hill Shomrim (a neighbourhood patrol group), said that the ‘figures are shocking’ (Sugarman, 2017).

The limited academic research not only highlights the prevalence of victimisation among the Orthodox Jews, but also stressed that Orthodox Jews in Britain are measurably more anxious about antisemitism than non-Orthodox

British Jews, in that over half of the former ‘are worried about becoming a victim of an antisemitic act’ (JPR, 2014, p.29).

In light of this resurgence of antisemitism in Britain, conducting this research is important. Antisemitic incidents have reached record level, anxiety levels among the Jewish British population are rising and some are considering emigrating. Conducting this research among the Orthodox Jewish community is of tangible significance as it is them who are prime targets of antisemitic victimisation and are most vulnerable to attack.

1.2 The purpose and aims of this research

Against this backdrop, the main purpose of this study is to examine the antisemitic experiences of Orthodox Jews in North London, to explore their

14 perceptions of antisemitism and to examine which coping mechanisms the

Orthodox Jewish community have had to adopt to manage their victimisation.

Raising awareness of the experiences of victims of antisemitism will contribute to understanding whether there is a need for more effective law enforcement.

Within this research project, I also aim to explore the way these experiences have impacted them, and the extent to which, as a result of the victimisation, they have felt the need to negotiate their identity as Jews and to re-appraise their sense of security as British Jews.

The distinct experiences of victims of antisemitism have received relatively little attention within academic literature. Whilst there have been numerous debates about the resurgence of antisemitism (Report of All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, 2015), the voices and experiences of members of the

Orthodox Jewish community have often been overlooked within communal

(CST), professional and academic research. This research aims to fill this gap in the literature. Gidley (2014, p.15) states that ‘subjective experiences of antisemitism must not become the final arbiter in determining the prevalence of antisemitism, but needs to be taken seriously… [it] may provide a way to generate a more productive discussion of antisemitism, through which subjective experiences can be taken more seriously’.

The importance of hearing from the voices of victims has been embedded since the 1999 Macpherson Report. Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, recommendation 12 of the Macpherson principle highlighted the importance of considering the victim’s perception in assessing whether or not a particular incident is or is not racist. In discussing antisemitic perceptions, Gidley (2014,

15 p.13) reports that in light of the Macpherson Report ‘the victim’s voice should be heard, and constitutes at least prima facie grounds for taking the allegation seriously’. Developing a ‘minority perspective’ (Phillips and Bowling, 2003) would allow for the distinct experiences of minority groups to be expressed.

1.3 Who is the Orthodox Jewish community?

The Orthodox Jewish community (also known as the Charedi community) is a close-knit, self-contained community whose religious observance provides the community’s structure and way of life. Orthodox Judaism is defined as ‘a branch of Judaism that faithfully adheres to traditional beliefs and practices as evidenced by Torah study, daily synagogue attendance and strict observance of the Sabbath, festival and dietary laws’ (Random House Dictionary, 2017). A large body of religious laws, customs and tradition govern the standards of behaviour for every aspect of life, including education, work, food and relationships. Orthodox Jews prioritize living in cohesive communities in order to have access to religious and cultural facilities. The community provides its members with a rich web of social support. There are dozens of charitable organisations (Gemachs) that lend out whatever is required (interest-free money, beds, cots, chairs, bridal wear, postal service, even mother’s milk for a mother who is not able to nurse). They have established a cohesive unit dedicated to caring for all of its members. They are required by Jewish law to give a portion of their income to tzedokah (charity money). The men are required to pray three times a day and the week culminates in the Shabbos

(which commences at sunset on Fridays). They observe Jewish holidays, buy food in kosher stores, and attend religious schools. They represent a thriving

16 community, based on strong religious values, within the multi-cultural, multi- faith London of the 21st century.

The charedi communities in London live within tight geographical borders. This study will explore antisemitism within the two charedi communities of London –

Stamford Hill (SH) and North West (NW) London. In referring to Stamford Hill,

I will be referring to the charedi community that forms a substantial proportion of Hackney and to a lesser degree, Haringey. When referring to North West

London, I will be referring to Golders Green and Hendon. These are the two most concentrated neighbourhoods where charedi Jews reside in London.

Whilst there may be geographical and ideological differences between these two neighbourhoods, these Jewish residents are both considered charedi.

‘Nationally, Jews comprise just 0.5% of the national population, but at the local level that proportion rises to as much as 40% in some places’ (Graham, 2011, p.2). Greater London accounts for 65.3% of the total Jewish Population in

Britain (Census, 2011). The strictly Orthodox Jewish population constitute a minority of the total Jewish population in the UK. Of the 271,259 Jews living within the UK, 43,571 are strictly Orthodox Jews, forming 16% of the overall

Jewish population (Census, 2011). The 2011 census revealed that the Borough with the largest Jewish population is Barnet (which includes Golders Green and

Hendon) accounting for 14,024 Jews and Hackney accounted for 8,209 Jews

(Census, 2011).

Orthodox Jewish families are significantly larger in size. The average family size has between 6-7 children (Staetsky and Boyd, 2015), ‘The strictly Orthodox

17 Jewish population possesses the highest fertility of all religious groups in the

UK’ (Staetsky and Boyd, 2015, p.20). The latest Census of 2011 indicated a rise in the average number of Jewish births, due to the very high birth rates in the Orthodox community (which accounts for 40% of all Jewish births). The

Orthodox community is growing at 4.8% a year, while the number of secular and moderately religious Jews is declining by 0.3% (Staetsky and Boyd, 2015).

Before the end of the century, Orthodox Jews are to make up the majority of

British Jews due to the high birth and low death rates (Staetsky and Boyd,

2015). The rapid growth of Orthodox families suggests that increasing numbers of British Jews may become victims of antisemitism.

1.4 Community-based Organisations

There are 3 main community-based organisations that have been established to support the work of the police in helping to prevent antisemitism; the

Community Security Trust (CST), Shomrim and the Campaign Against

Antisemitism (CAA). Of those 3 organisations, the Orthodox Jewish community is most affiliated with Shomrim. I will discuss each in turn.

1.4a The CST

The CST is a long established voluntary organisation that ensures the safety and security of the Jewish community in the UK. The CST acts as an advisory body, which provides security advice and training for synagogues, Jewish schools and communal organisations. They are highly experienced in advising and representing the Jewish community on matters of antisemitism, terrorism and security. They have been producing annual antisemitic incidents reports since their formation in 1994.

18

‘Third Party reporting’ status was accorded to the CST in 2001, which permits the CST to report incidents of antisemitism to the police. The CST has also received an Information Sharing Agreement with the National Police Chief’s

Council that allows the police and CST to exchange information on antisemitic incidents reports. ‘451 of the 1309 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST nationally in 2016, came to the CST via information sharing agreements with the police, representing 34%’ (CST Incident Report 2016, p.8).

The CST does not usually provide a response service, unless there has been a major incident, for instance if an incident took place in a school. By way of an example, when the antisemitic riots took place in July 2015, they were responsible for dealing with it, and setting up strategies. On ground level, they provide community patrols on Shabbos and on Jewish festivals.

In order to protect the Jewish community from future threat of terrorist attack, the CST has distributed over £11m on improving security measures at Jewish buildings throughout the UK since 2006 (CST, 2018b). They are heavily funded by the government and are more of a forward planning organisation. Despite the vital work that the CST carried out, charedi Jews are, on the whole, not involved in the work of the CST. They are more affiliated with the work of

Shomrim.

1.4b Shomrim

The Orthodox Jewish community, with its own infrastructures, and in order to reduce crime levels in its neighbourhoods, set up a voluntary organisation

19 named Shomrim in the last decade (Shomrim in Hebrew translates as watchers or guards). Shomrim was set up in NW London (Shomrim North West) and in

Stamford Hill (Shomrim Stamford Hill); these were initially set up at the same time but work independently to one another. The purpose of these organisations is to respond as an emergency service to the Jewish community members at times of danger or distress.

Volunteers are based locally and provide an immediate response to an incident, taking pride that their response time is faster than the police. Shomrim work closely with the police and ‘hand over’ the perpetrators that they arrest (through their powers of citizens arrest) to the police. Shomrim were singled out for their help in bringing offenders of antisemitic crime to justice, with the Hackney Police

Borough Commander quoted as saying that 27% of antisemitic perpetrators in

Hackney are caught and charged or cautioned and ‘Shomrim have played a huge part in that by alerting us of crimes and providing evidence to bring offenders to justice’ (Tute, 2016).

Shomrim NW have a marked vehicle that patrols the neighbourhood with the aim of being a visual deterrent to perpetrators. Members of the Jewish community often show gratitude and appreciation by waving to the driver of the vehicle as it passes by.

Governmental funding has not been available to Shomrim and they have been relying on self-fund raising. Due to limited funding, Shomrim, unlike the CST, do not have the resources to record nor monitor crimes. The do not have an

Information Sharing Agreement with the National Police Chief’s Council. They

20 do not have a base, and therefore any meeting that they have, is in a volunteer’s home.

Shomrim was originally formed to bridge the gap between the Orthodox Jewish community and the police. Members of the Jewish community were not reporting incidents to the police, and Shomrim was set up to inform the police as to what was going on within the community, to increase numbers of CCTV and the need for more patrols. They have a call line that treats all calls as needing immediate response. The operator (often the wife of one of the

Shomrim volunteers) alerts the members to be despatched to the scene, allowing them to act primarily as an emergency response. They have no intention of taking over the role of the police and train their volunteers to take a step back when the police arrives at the scene. They simply bridge the gap between a call coming in and the police arriving at the scene. They use the time to support and calm the victim down and to ensure that any evidence is preserved. Often faced with reluctance, they encourage members of the community to ring the police, to provide statements and to attend court.

Shomrim have an excellent track record in victim and witness support, particularly when victims are required to attend court. They are always accessible.

The formation of Shomrim highlights the mutual care and concern as well as the infrastructure that the Orthodox Jewish community have developed.

In summary, both these organisations serve the Jewish community in supporting the police in countering antisemitic crimes. However, they are

21 mutually exclusive organisations. Shomrim are very much geographically located in particular places and more building on a local level on the streets, whereas CST would be involved in discussions on a very senior level with the police service and the government around Jewish community issues. It is therefore apparent that it is almost impossible to compare these two organisations as they are not like-for-like and play different roles. The way each of these organisations is perceived by the Orthodox Jewish community will be examined in Chapter 7 (Under-reporting and Perceptions of Agencies).

1.4c The Campaign Against Antisemitism

The third community-based organisation is the Campaign Against Antisemitism

(CAA). It was registered as a charitable organisation in 2015. Their antisemitic crime audits collect and analyse antisemitic crime data from police forces in the

UK. The voice of the CAA is often published in the media and they have been proactive and successful in bringing private prosecutions of antisemitism. As with the CST, they are not an organisation that the Orthodox Jewish Community habitually affiliates themselves with.

1.4d THE BCCA

Most recently, in October 2017, as a response to mounting antisemitism, a number of Orthodox Jewish organisations, which included the Campaign against Antisemitism, Jewish Police Association, Shomrim SH, Shomrim NW and Shomrim Salford, joined as one body named The British Council for

Countering Antisemitism (The BCCA). This body is newly formed, but have established three aims. First, to speak as one voice on behalf of the religious

Jewish community. They are formed by several organisations which form a

22 strong group, supporting each other and complimenting one another. Second, to put in place protocols and frameworks so that the Orthodox Jewish community can benefit from its work. Finally, to apply for governmental funding to further secure the Orthodox Jewish community. They are in the process of signing an Information Sharing Protocol among themselves but thus far they have applied and have been refused an Information Sharing Agreement with the National Police Chief Council. The reason for the refusal has not been made public. That has been very disappointing for them as an Information Sharing

Agreement is in place with Galop (which monitors LGBT crimes), Tell Mama

(which monitors Islamophobia) and the CST. The National Police Chief Council have not been willing to extend the Information Sharing Agreement to the

BCCA, which has greatly disappointed the BCCA.

1.5 The research questions

My research questions have come out of identifying gaps in previous research and were designed to address the experiences of individuals in the community and the structures around them:

1. What antisemitic incidents are Orthodox Jews in London subjected to and what is their immediate response to those incidents?

2. What are the perceptions held by Orthodox Jews in London of antisemitism?

3. What coping mechanisms are currently being adopted in response to the rise in antisemitism by the Orthodox Jewish community?

23 4. To what extent did Orthodox Jews report antisemitic incidents and what were their perceptions about the agencies which respond to antisemitism?

1.6 Public Climate of Antisemitism

In the next three sections, I will discuss where antisemitism, arguably, manifests itself most noticeably: namely, within the Labour party, on university campuses, and in the media. My analysis will show that the respondents within my data also sensed the rise of antisemitism within these 3 spheres. That is not to mean that antisemitism is not blatant in other spheres, merely that these are places where there has been an obvious shift in the rise of antisemitism, places where antisemitism has become more blatant than only a decade ago. These are spheres where there has been a change in the public climate whereby antisemitic sentiments have become more socially acceptable. In addition, I will argue that the regularity and frequency of antisemitic rhetoric within these establishments fuels hatred and bias, and increases the level of insecurity in the Jewish community.

1.6a The Political Space

Antisemitism in the Labour party has become a recurrent feature of politics in

Britain, prompting national headlines in 2015-2018. The Labour leader, Rt Hon

Jeremy Corbyn MP, has been accused of covering up antisemitism within party ranks. Mr. Corbyn, the most left-wing leader in decades, has called Hamas and

Hezbollah ‘friends’ and has drawn a parallel between Israel and the terrorist group known as the Islamic State.

24 Accusations have been made that antisemitism has been allowed to fester within the party. It is argued that some Labour MPs have been suspended or expelled due to alleged antisemitism, whereas others have made derogatory comments about Jews and have not been penalised. Either way, there has been antisemitic discourse in the Labour party.

One of the suspended members was MP Ken Livingstone, who suggested that

Hitler supported Zionism. After a two-year suspension, Ken Livingstone chose to resign. The delay of Mr. Corbyn to bring Ken Livingstone to apologise has received much criticism (CAA, 2018). Another MP who has been suspended was MP Naz Shah. Her posts on social media suggested the relocation of Israel to the United States as a solution to the Middle East conflict, and compared

Israel to Nazi Germany. She was subsequently reinstated after apologising for her conduct and after engaging constructively with the Jewish community.

Jackie Walker, vice chair of Momentum (a left-wing British political organisation founded in 2015), was readmitted to the party after saying that Jews were ‘the chief financers of the slave trade’ and refusing to express remorse over her statement. She then criticised Holocaust Memorial Day for commemorating only Jewish victims, suggesting it should be more inclusive. She was under pressure to resign in June 2016 and was eventually removed from her position as vice chair of Momentum in October 2016.

Individual Labour party members have also been subjected to antisemitic abuse. Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth received more than 25,000 abusive messages on her twitter account in 2016, most of which were antisemitic. She

25 commented that there were rare flashes of antisemitism with the Labour party under Ed Miliband, who is Jewish:

But not like this. I’ve never seen anti-Semitism in Labour on this scale. There were one or two incidents before and the reason why they were so shocking is that there were only one or two. Now the sheer volume of it has made it normal. (Gerstensfeld, 2016)

Under criticism for allowing antisemitism to thrive under his leadership, Mr.

Corbyn ordered an inquiry into antisemitism within the Labour party. Human rights lawyer Shami Chakrabarti produced a report in June 2016 that concluded that antisemitism was not ‘endemic within the party’, but that ignorance of the potential harm and the use of antisemitic language was a problem among members. Jewish advocates, however, claimed that the report did not go far enough to address the problem. Furthermore, Ms Chakrabarti was nominated for a peerage by Mr. Corbyn, taking a seat in the House of Lords just weeks after the report was released. The report of her peerage was met with much criticism from Jewish leaders. The Chief Rabbi tweeted that ‘Shami Chakrabarti has a proud record of public service, but in accepting this peerage, the credibility of her report lies in tatters and the Labour party’s stated intention, to unequivocally tackle antisemitism, remain woefully unrealised’ (Mirvis,

2016). The Home Affairs Committee (2016) stated that ‘her subsequent appointment as Shadow Attorney General, ha[s] thrown into question her claims (and those of Mr. Corbyn [MP]) that her inquiry was truly independent’

(Home Affairs Committee, 2016, p. 44).

This summer (2018) has been full of attacks against the Labour leader. After a long summer of discourse, filled with criticism of the Labour party tampering with the definition of antisemitism, the Labour party finally accepted in full the

26 IHRA definition of antisemitism. Gideon Falter, Chairman of CAA, said: ‘It is appalling that it has taken them until now, two years after the Government adopted the definition, to finally accept something as basic as what constitutes antisemitism, albeit under duress’ (CAA, 2018).

Apart from the long delay in accepting the IHRA definition in full, other criticisms were channelled at Mr. Corbyn over the summer of 2018. Mr. Corbyn faced criticism in August 2018 after a video emerged in which he said a group of

British Zionists had ‘no sense of English irony’ (BBC, 2018). Former Chief Rabbi

Lord Sacks condemned Mr. Corbyn’s comments as ‘the most offensive statement’ by a politician since Enoch Powell's ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech and accused the Labour Leader of being an ‘anti-Semite’ (BBC, 2018).

The Labour leader was criticised in the summer of 2018 over his attendance in

Tunisia in 2014 at a ceremony which is alleged to have shown respect to the perpetrators of the 1972 Munich terror attack, at which 11 members of the

Israeli Olympic team were taken hostage and killed. The Israeli Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu said Mr. Corbyn deserved ‘unequivocal condemnation’ for laying a wreath on the grave of one of those behind the atrocity’ (BBC, 2018).

In July 2018, the same front page was published by the UK’s three main Jewish newspapers, warning that a government led by Mr. Corbyn would pose an

‘existential threat to Jewish life’ in the UK (BBC, 2018). This was an unprecedented joint editorial on the front pages of the Jewish Chronicle, Jewish

News and the Jewish Telegraph.

27 In his book, The Left’s Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti-

Semitism (2016), Dave Rich highlights the widening gulf in Britain between

Jews and the anti-Israel left. He argues that the current Labour leader’s ascent has spawned a party with a malignant blind spot when it comes to antisemitism.

The Home Affairs Committee (2016) stated that they ‘believe that his lack of consistent leadership on the issue… has created what some have referred to as a “safe space” for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people’ (2016, p.

44).

During a speech at a dinner for World Jewish Relief, Chancellor George

Osborne branded antisemitism in the Labour party ‘a cancer that needs to be dealt with’ (Mendel, 2016). The perception that the Labour party has failed to rigorously oppose antisemitism is widespread. In fact, John Mann MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, said the 2016 CST statistics, showing an upward trend, were ‘very worrying’. He blamed the increase on ‘the rise of national populism’ as well as the ‘failure to boldly oppose antisemitism’ (Oryszczuk, 2017). It is apparent from the previous and recent events that the narrative of antisemitism is evolving and is not a static concept.

The analysis of the thesis will highlight that respondents were acutely aware of the rise in antisemitism within the Labour party.

1.6b University Campuses

Respondents within this research reported that there has been a significant rise of antisemitism on campuses as well. This is through first-hand knowledge as well as knowledge obtained from others. This is in line with research which shows that antisemitic climate on university campuses has intensified in recent

28 years. A recent NUS report (2017) found that 26 per cent of Jewish students were fairly or very worried about being subjected to antisemitic incidents, and

28 per cent experienced some form of abuse. The 2016 CST Incident Report recorded 41 antisemitic incidents that year targeting Jewish students, academics or student bodies across Britain, compared to 21 such incidents the previous year (CST, 2016).

The Oxford Union Labour Club for example, faced allegations of antisemitism;

Baroness Jan Royall conducted an inquiry into the Club. She found that whilst there is no institutional antisemitism within it, ‘too often there is a culture of intolerance where Jews are concerned and there are clear incidents of antisemitism’ (Royall, 2016). She made a series of recommendations for the club, as well as the party, based on the report. Nonetheless, the National

Executive Committee (NEC), the chief administrative body of the Labour party, decided not to publish the full report, contrary to Baroness Royall’s express wishes. The refusal to publish the full report has been met with much criticism.

Nine months after Baroness Royall’s report, a decision was made by the Labour party not to prosecute two individuals accused of antisemitism at Oxford

University Labour Club. Having investigated these claims, Baroness Royall stated that she is ‘deeply disappointed by the outcome and fears that it will further harm relations between the Jewish community and our party by confirming a widely held view that we don’t take antisemitism seriously’

(Edmonds, 2017).

1.6c The Media

29 Finally, respondents in this research thought that there had been a rise in antisemitism in the media. The media has made it easy for hate crime and antisemitism to spread. Perpetrators are able to hide behind their computers and remain anonymous. Messages can go viral within minutes. The negative influence that social media can perpetuate cannot be underestimated (Ardley,

2005, p.57). Individuals’ interpretation of the world is influenced by the media’s contributions (Golding and Murdock, 2000) and can create ‘deep seated hatred… and perpetuate intolerance and the possibility of victimisation of minority groups’ (Ardley, 2005, p.57). The harm which online media can perpetuate extends to fearing being victimised in person such that victims of online threat ‘describe living in fear because of the possibility of online threats materialising in the “real world”’ (Awan, 2017, p.4).

The media also impacts in the political sphere. Prof. Robert Solomon

Wistrich criticised the media for their bias against Israel:

Since the Second Intifada, the BBC as well as some major British newspapers have reported daily on Israel in an often tendentious, biased, and one-sided fashion. Under no circumstances will the BBC refer to any act of Hamas or other Palestinian terrorist organizations as terrorism. These killers are always referred to as militants, which has trade-union connotations in Britain. It is the term used when, for instance, shop stewards advocate a factory strike (Wistrich, 2008).

Gidley (2014) echoed these thoughts and discussed the disproportionate focus on Israel in the media ‘across the political spectrum, while other conflicts go unreported’ (2014, p.13). Whilst Gidley considered it insensitive to reduce conflicts to their casualty figures, he did highlight that ‘the Gaza conflict was far from the bloodiest conflict in 2014: compare it to death tolls for the year of over

70,000 in Syria, over 50,000 in South Sudan, over 18,000 in Afghanistan, over

30 10,000 in Mexico’s drug war, over 7,000 in Yemen, over 5,000 in each of northern Nigeria, Pakistan and the Central African Republic, over 4,000 in

Ukraine, or nearly 3,000 in Libya (2014, p.13). Gidley maintains that the disproportionate focus on Israel-Palestine within UK mainstream media feeds and fuels ‘more ideological antisemitism’ (2014, p.15) and sets the foundation for dismissal of antisemitic allegations.

Whilst criticism of Israel may be high in the media, many incidents of antisemitism within the Labour party as well as incidents of antisemitism on campus are also prevalent in the media. Mr. Corbyn, who is well aware of the reach and influence of social media, in a recent speech, where he made proposals for media reforms, said that newspapers ‘churn out fake news day in, day out’ (The Guardian, 2018). These three spheres are interlinked. By way of example, antisemitism within the Labour party would swiftly appear as headlines within the media and this in turn could lead to increased antisemitism on campus. These spheres cannot be seen in a vacuum.

The above three spheres set the context and background as to the way my respondents perceived antisemitism manifested itself in the UK. These are places where there is discourse regarding antisemitism. The respondents in my study felt a significant shift in antisemitism increasing within these three spheres and this will be discussed in further details in chapter 5 (Perceptions). This may represent a belief within that community that Labour’s support of Hamas in the region is associated with hostile sentiments towards Jewish people; and a kind of semantic amalgamation between antizionism and antisemitism. As this study is based on the perceptions of the respondents the research did not set out to

31 evidence the rise in antisemitism and does not seek to present their perceptions as an uncontested reality (by way of example refer to comment I made on pg.

209 in response to F8’s comment that the main threat is from the Labour party).

1.7 Research Paradigm: Epistemology / Ontology

This research is focused on the perceptions and experiences of antisemitism.

While it has a foundation on standard and legal definitions of hate crime and antisemitism, its value lies in understanding the personal and individual. To achieve this goal, the research makes use of an interpretivist paradigm, allowing the researcher to examine the reality as it presents itself from the perspective of participants, built from their subjective experiences and drawing meaning from these individuals engaging in social interaction.

Furthermore, interpretivists view reality as being multiple and relative (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988), and unlike positivists, do not view that there is a single objective reality to any research phenomenon (Hudson and Ozanne,

1988). The ontological stance of interpretivism asserts that human beings attach meaning to their social reality and that there are multiple realities

(Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Therefore people make sense of their social worlds in a multiple of ways, dependent on their personal experiences, their pre-existing knowledge of the phenomenon and their own interpretations. This was important to enable me to find the nuance and variability of participants’ views of antisemitism, using the totality of their experiences without needing to consolidate them into one expression. It enabled me to find what meaning respondents give to antisemitism and how antisemitism shapes their lives.

32

Interpretivism, has many facets, one of which, symbolic interactionism helps further illuminate the meaning respondents attach to a phenomenon. Adopting an interpretative stance, and specifically symbolic interactionism, has aided me in understanding and interpreting the different meanings individuals give to antisemitism (Neuman, 1999; Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). The implication of adopting this paradigm is that the research is open to different interpretations of the phenomenon of antisemitism and that there is no single reality to the way antisemitism is perceived among the Orthodox Jewish community.

Interpretivists believe that conducting objective research is an unrealistic goal as the researcher's values and theoretical beliefs cannot be fully removed from any research. Thus, I chose to embrace my subjectivity, and used my membership of this Orthodox Jewish community to immerse myself with my participants (my insider status will be discussed in subsection 3.7). I was granted access to individuals and leaders within the community and was able to communicate with them easily and openly. As the respondents based their interaction with me on the assumption that our customs, culture and ways of life are similar, there was an open form of discussion. This was one of the main benefits of being an insider, along with the understanding of certain nuances.

The drawbacks of being an insider is that the researcher may make various assumptions based on his or her prior knowledge of the topic, issue or group which may be inaccurate, not maintaining an objective, unbiased stance of the data (DeLyser, 2001).

33 As a researcher, it was important for me to remain aware of the possible pitfalls that may be encountered as an insider such as not remaining analytical or critical. As a researcher I am involved in my study and am an integral part of it.

Galdas (2017) states that ‘those carrying out qualitative research are an integral part of the process and final product, and separation from this is neither possible nor desirable’ (p.2). Galdas (2017) claims that in accordance with Polit and Beck (2014), ‘the concern instead should be whether the researcher has been transparent and reflexive’ (p.2). I remained analytically focused being aware of the context, the literature and ‘the bigger picture’, constantly reminding myself of these at analysis stage. Whilst most respondents were only aware of their limited experiences (be it from their personal encounters, conversations and insights from the media), I had enough knowledge which allowed me to be somewhat removed, step back and interpret what the respondents were saying.

As a researcher it was important for me to be both involved and detached.

I made use of interviews and focus groups and adopted a more personal, interactive mode of data collection to gather the way the respondents had interpreted antisemitism. I chose to gather data at a period of time where antisemitism occupied a pertinent place and also gathered data within a short period of time so that I could assess the variations in the perceptions within a specific time period and context. I remained opened to new knowledge throughout the data collection as the research developed.

As a Jewish woman I am well placed to offer an account of what it means to be

Jewish, without falling into the trap of assuming that all Jewish people experience being in the world / society / community, in quite the same

34 way. Whilst being Jewish is experienced in a different way by each Jew, antisemitism ironically assumes the opposite: antisemitism is homogenised and explained in a myopic fashion that all Jews are the same. I will elaborate in subsection 3.7 on my personal background and the status of an insider.

1.8 Theoretical Framework

I have chosen to use the term antisemitism to mean any form of hostility towards

Jews based on their identity. The way antisemitism plays out, both within individuals and the community, needs to be understood and sits at the heart of this research. I made use of three interlinked theoretical strands which have inspired this research. They are: symbolic interactionism (Mead, 1934), identity theory (Stryker, 1968, 1980) and social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986).

These three theoretical strands, combined together enable me to show that antisemitism is going to be understood and interpreted differently by different individuals (symbolic interactionism), that antisemitism may influence respondents to navigate and negotiate their identity as visible Orthodox Jews

(symbolic interactionism and identity theory) and finally, that antisemitism may influence respondents’ choice to belong the Orthodox Jewish community

(social identity theory).

It ought to be mentioned in the juncture, that this study is not a sociological study. Whilst it has been inspired by sociological theories (such as the theoretical underpinnings listed below), and has used a methodological approach (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) which is often used in sociology research, these theoretical frameworks have inspired my thesis, they have not underpinned it. My approach takes account of the context in which

35 respondents live. What makes the research specific is the collection of data in two highly important locals in North London.

1.8a Symbolic Interactionism

Underlying symbolic interactionism is the predominant assumption that individuals act on the basis of the meaning that things have for them (Mead,

1934). Using symbolic interactionism as a theoretical framework means that antisemitism is going to be understood and interpreted differently by different individuals, depending on the meaning they attach to those interactions, or in other words, the way they are understood and interpreted will differ. The term

‘symbolic interactionism’ was coined by Herbert Blumer (1969) to expound on the ideas originally formulated by George Herbert Mead (1934), that individuals behave towards things or others (objects) based on the meaning they attach to those things or people and that these interpretations are derived from social interactions; that individuals and groups of people define themselves vis-à-vis others (Mead, 1934; Goffman, 1959). Furthermore, this is understood to be a continuous process, such that individuals are recurrently deducing the symbolic meaning of their environment (as well as the actions of others) and respond on the basis of this assigned meaning. In this way, human conduct is formed through the process of social interaction and the interpretation of human activity.

Religious Orthodox Jews have shared cultural and religious values that not only distinguish them from other groups but also are an essential component of their identity. Symbolic interactionism becomes relevant here given the vast differences in the practices of religious Orthodox Jews and other groups. The

36 way antisemitism will be understood and interpreted will be an important piece of this research. Because of the difference in their religious values, the research will show that the way participants may respond to antisemitism may differ from other victims of hate crime as well as from non-Orthodox Jews.

Furthermore, Orthodox Jews themselves will make sense of antisemitism based on their interpretations and meaning attributed to the aggressor. For instance, the meaning of antisemitism to an Orthodox Jewish Holocaust survivor would be quite different from that of an Orthodox Jewish 18-year-old person who has never experienced an antisemitic attack. It is understood that the meaning an individual attributes to an incident is not fixed, it is negotiated through social interaction with others, both positive interactions such as the support of the community and the religious context and negative interactions, such as antisemitic media coverage, a rise in antisemitic incidents and public expressions of antisemitism.

In this way, any antisemitism could affect a Jew’s core identity in one of two directions. Some would retain their Jewish identity, despite the challenges, and others, according to Neusner (2003), will question their Jewish identity and choose to deny their Jewishness. As Kurt Lewin pointed out in Resolving Social

Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics (Harper, 1948), ‘…every underprivileged minority group is kept together not only by cohesive forces among its members but also by the boundary which the majority erects against the crossing of an individual from the minority to the majority group’ (p. 164).

An underprivileged group, according to Neusner (2003) will attempt to reach

37 social status by joining the majority, to seek to pass, to assimilate. Because this member is at a transitory point, as Lewin states:

He (the minority group member) lives almost perpetually in a state of conflict and tension. He dislikes…his own group because it is nothing but a burden on him…A Jew of this type will dislike everything specifically Jewish, for he will see in it that which keeps him away from the majority for which he is longing. (Lewin, 1945, p.164)

This research will show despite an acute awareness of antisemitism, and a mindful awareness that they are a minority, the respondents did not wish to assimilate nor to belong to the majority. The approach of Neusner (2003) and

Lewin (1945) may be more relevant to secular Jews, who may already be assimilated to an extent, than to Orthodox Jews.

As it seeks to explore the experiences and perceptions of antisemitism, this study strives to discover the meaning which respondents attach to their victimisation. Analysing the perceptions and experiences of the Orthodox

Jewish community on antisemitism using symbolic interactionism as a theoretical framework, will allow me to explore structural tensions; to understand the behaviour of Jewish Orthodox individuals, their social interactions both within and outside their communities and the way they then navigate and negotiate their identity given these experiences.

1.8b Identity Theory

Identity theory, evolved by Stryker (1968, 1980), purports that each person may hold multiple identities, using different ones to fulfil different roles in different social contexts. These collectively, make up the self.

38 Using the concepts of identity salience and commitment, it becomes possible to understand role performances; the reason a person chooses one role over another. Identities are orchestrated and organised into salience hierarchy; some identities being more important to the individual than others. The level of commitment to the identity is the number of others to whom one is connected to by possessing a particular identity (Stryker, 1980). Stryker (1980) postulates that the greater the commitment to an identity, the more salient that identity shall be. Observant Jews for instance report higher levels of Jewish identification and greater salience of their Jewish identity, relative to Jews of other denominations (Haji, 2011; JPR, 2014). This will be discussed in my findings chapters.

Other factors can also play a role in enforcing an identity. If others positively reinforce an identity, individuals will strengthen their commitment to that identity; it will move higher in the salience hierarchy and individuals will seek out opportunities to play out the identity. Similarly, negative reinforcement by others, can erode commitment to their identity and they may choose not to remain committed to that identity.

As was seen previously, external threats, such as antisemitism, may have one of two opposing impacts. It may reinforce individuals’ sense of belonging to the

Jewish community, leading to strengthened unity amongst the Jewish community, or alternately it may cause individuals to reshape their identity as

Jews or adopt new identities altogether by moving away from the original group

(Neusner, 2003).

39 The role of antisemitism in shaping Jewish identity has been well documented by social researchers. One argument states that the internal cohesion of Jewish communities and group loyalty has been inspired in reaction to the external pressure of antisemitism (Cohen, 2004; Sacks, 1993; Sartre, 1948). A counter argument posits that the Jewish identity is somewhat immune and independent of external pressures (Triango, cited in Cohen, 2010; Ahad Ha-am, 1949;

Goffman, 1968). Whereas a third group has shown antisemitism to move Jews away from their Jewish identity, to question their own sense of worth, making them more distant from the Jewish community (Neusner, 2003). In line with role-related behaviour, some Jews had abandoned their sense of tradition, as their feelings of social acceptance became more extreme (Goffman, 1986). For instance, Jews living within Nazi Germany responded to the relentless pressure of a hostile environment by revising their identity. Many Jews tried to reconcile antisemitic sentiment by changing their religion and modifying their own behaviour (Kaplan, 1991).

The above examples illustrate that antisemitism can impact in the formation of identity and role in different ways. This research will examine the level of commitment of the participants to their identity, the level of salience of that identity and the extent to which current antisemitism has shaped or is shaping their identity as Jews.

1.8c Social Identity Theory

Individuals do not only define themselves in accordance to the multiple identities which they hold, individuals also define themselves, as well as their self-worth, in accordance with their connection to a particular social category

40 (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Once a person has categorised himself or herself as belonging to a certain social group, that individual’s self-esteem is measured in accordance with the characteristics of that group (Luhtanen and Crocker,

1992). Furthermore, once an individual categorises himself as part of a particular group, they will attempt to enhance positive impressions of that group in order to impact perceptions and attitudes of others (Branscombe et. al.,

1999).

Individuals desire for an identity. Previous generations may have relied on nationality to provide the basis of their identity, however, the state has now become too remote to provide the basis of identity (Berger, cited in Sacks,

1993, p.95). This in part explains the reason behind minority religious and ethnic identities resurging in the last few decades (Sacks, 1993).

The Orthodox Jewish community has a very high level of social cohesion and solidarity. ‘The strength of the Jewish community reflects the number and intensity of in-group interactions. The more the bases of interaction and the greater its intensity, the more cohesive is the community’ (Goldscheider, 1986, p.1). Living in close proximity to other Jews, working, socialising and attending local synagogues, are interactions which further strengthen the community.

The close cultural and social ties within the Orthodox Jewish community results in a more self-contained and closed community. When located in a foreign culture, among diverse religions, Jews consider the community and the family unit as providing the security and the roots that they frequently lack. The Jewish tradition preserves the family and in turn the family preserves the religion

41 (Sacks, 1993). Arendt noted: ‘in the preservation of the Jewish people the family had played a far greater role than in any Western political or social body except the nobility’ (Arendt, 1966, p.28). To this day, family units within the Orthodox

Jewish community are extremely strong and provide a great sense of stability and security.

This thesis will examine the extent to which the group identity shapes their perceptions of antisemitism and whether the close and cohesive community is an important source in the way they give meaning to antisemitism.

Using these three theoretical strands will allow me to explore the way respondents give meaning to antisemitism, to explore the way Orthodox Jewish individuals orchestrate their Jewish identity in the face of antisemitism, to examine the way their Jewish identity is shaped by their interpretation and understanding of antisemitism, and to test the extent to which the group membership of this sample, namely being a Jew, is an important source of their identity. If there is an emotional toll of stigmatisation within the Jewish community, it needs to be acknowledged and merits further research.

1.9 Conclusion

In this introductory chapter, I have given an overview of the climate of antisemitism within London and the spheres where antisemitism is most noticeable. I have highlighted that among the general Jewish population, it is the Orthodox Jews who are prime targets of victimisation and that statistics reflect the higher prevalence rate of victimisation. I have suggested that there is a gap in the literature, namely hearing exclusively from the voices of the

42 Orthodox Jews regarding the type of incidents they are subjected to, their perceptions of antisemitism and the coping mechanisms which they had adopted.

This chapter also outlined the three main community-based organisations that have been established to support the work of the police in helping to prevent antisemitism. It concluded with the research paradigm with reference to its theoretical frameworks. In the next chapter, I will examine the literature available on hate crime and more specifically, on antisemitism.

43 Outline of Chapters

Chapter 1 is an introduction to the thesis. It sets out the purpose and aims of the research and describes in detail the Orthodox Jewish community and the community-based organisations which are in place, to support victims of antisemitism. The chapter contains an overview of the present discourses of antisemitism prevalent among the Labour party, the media and on campus. It introduces the research paradigm and the theoretical frameworks.

Chapter 2 is a review of the existing literature on hate crime and antisemitism.

This chapter is divided into six subcategories. It first contains an overview of hate crime and antisemitism in the UK. It then examines literature which studies the extent of hate crime and antisemitism. The third subcategory focuses on the perceptions of antisemitism. The literature on impact of crime and the coping mechanisms adopted form the fourth and fifth subcategory. The chapter concludes with discussions on the concept of victim.

Chapter 3, being the methodology chapter, describes my research design and the rationale for my choice of methods. It details the sample used to gather the data and the methods used to access the respondents. It considers the impacts of being an insider and discusses the main ethical considerations. The interview schedule as well the focus group questions are reproduced in the appendix.

Chapter 4, is the first chapter of the analysis; it describes a typology of antisemitic incidents which some of the 28 respondents of the interviewees were subjected to. The types of incidents described fell into one of five categories, including physical attacks, verbal assaults, discrimination,

44 prejudicial attitudes, stereotyping and distribution of material. This chapter highlights the prevalence of victimisation among the sample. It also details the immediate response of the respondents to the victimisation and briefly outlines the experiences and emotional responses of those who were not directly victimised.

Chapter 5 explores the perceptions of respondents of antisemitism. It details their perceptions regarding the scale and significance of antisemitism, with most respondents expressing that antisemitism has become more overt in its expression. The chapter outlines specific areas where respondents feel there is a shift in antisemitism, specifically within the Labour party, the media and on campus. The chapter also outlines contributory factors which shaped the perceptions of the respondents, including the historical and religious context of antisemitism, heightened security measures and support from externals.

Perceptions of antisemitism cannot be seen in a vacuum, but rather take account of a myriad of factors; linked to the context.

Chapter 6 analyses the coping mechanisms which respondents adopted in managing the victimisation. The chapter shows normalisation as the predominant form of response for most of the respondents, with respondents accepting the victimisation as part of day-to-day life. This chapter argues that it is their strong religious and community ties which allow them to respond in this way. It also discusses the small number of respondents who adopted preventative measures to deal with the victimisation. Before concluding, it outlines the reason the concept of victimhood is understated from the data.

45 Chapter 7 outlines the respondents’ views about the state and community- based organisations which respond to antisemitism; those of the police,

Community Security Trust and Shomrim. It reveals the reasons for the low reporting rates of the incidents outlined in chapter 4. It also outlines the natural affiliation which respondents have with Shomrim.

The conclusion chapter draws together the findings, outlines the original contribution to literature, and identifies some implications of the research for law enforcement on antisemitism. Finally, it makes recommendations on a local level, to boost the efficacy of Shomrim, with the aim of advancing the protection afforded to the Orthodox Jewish community.

46 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this literature review, I shall examine six main themes related to my research topic that have emerged from authors who have studied hate crime.

Theme one, titled ‘Overview of hate crime and antisemitism’ sets out the historical roots and origins of hate crime and antisemitism. It lays out the definitions of hate crime and antisemitism and the surrounding debates on these definitions. It then highlights the current legislation afforded to victims of hate crime and antisemitism and discusses the enhanced punishment which is provided for victims of hate crime.

Theme two, titled ‘Extent of hate crime and antisemitism in the UK’, sets out the scale of hate crime within the UK, but more specifically considers the extent of antisemitism in Britain. It highlights a resurgence of antisemitism within the UK and an overall upward trend in criminality that forms the context for me to explore perceptions and experiences of antisemitism among the Orthodox

Jewish Community in London.

Theme three, titled ‘Perceptions of antisemitism in the literature’, details existing literature on the way this phenomenon is viewed. It highlights that the voices of the Orthodox Jewish British community on antisemitism has received sparse attention in scholarly literature; this informed my research questions. This under-researched area sets the rationale and context for my research which would add to knowledge about the Orthodox Jewish community.

47 The fourth theme, titled ‘Impact of hate crime’, explores the distinctive effects that hate crime has on its victims. Hate crime not only has deeper psychological and emotional effects than other violent crimes, it also has ripple implications for the community as a whole, with members of the community fearing that they may become the next target. This research will examine both the impact on direct victims of antisemitism as well as the impact on members of the community who had been made aware of other’s victimisation (known as vicarious victimisation). The impact on the Orthodox Jewish community has also received little attention in published studies.

Theme five, titled ‘Coping Mechanisms’, identifies the various strategies victims adopt to cope with being victimised and to limit the risk of further victimisation, such as withdrawal from main stream society, isolation, negotiating their appearance publicly or negotiating their identity. This research aims to explore these findings within this minority group and to test whether the Orthodox

Jewish community has chosen similar coping mechanisms or whether they chose to accept the victimisation.

Finally, theme six, titled ‘The concept of victim’, examines the social process of being identified as a victim of hate crime. It highlights that the notion of victimhood is not an objective one and in order to be labelled as a victimised group, this group needs to engender sufficient compassion among the public to achieve victim status. This research will explore the extent to which the Jewish community identified themselves as victims of antisemitism.

2.1 Theme 1: Overview of Hate Crime and Antisemitism

48 The accenting of prejudice, discrimination, negative stereotypes and social tension leads to hate crime. It is a social problem of humanity, spanning across oceans. Whilst the term hate crime has been coined relatively recently, the phenomenon has a long history. Discussion of hate crime can be traced to the beginning of the 1980s (Jenness and Broad, 1998). Hate crime, as a legal category, originated through the collective suffering of minority groups who were subjected to discrimination, harassment and violence from majority communities (Gerstenfeld, 2013). The shared experiences of minority groups helped unify them behind the phenomenon of hate crime, and gave them the strength to campaign for civil rights and equality.

Over the last few decades, hate crime has become the subject of much public debate and legal reform proposals within the UK. The racist murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and the subsequent publication of the

Macpherson Report in 1999 ignited debates among policy makers, the judiciary and academics on the treatment of minorities.

Antisemitism is one manifestation of hate crime. Religion is one aspect of cultural identity that expresses ‘difference’ and therefore has the potential to bestow a reduced status within society. Those who are affiliated with minority religions can be subjected to intolerance and hatred. Religious intolerance, as well as racial and ethnic oppression, have been at the core of some of the most awful atrocities in world history (Nadal et al., 2010).

There is a historical context in the case of antisemitism and historical episodes of hate crime which exacerbate stronger emotions. Nazi Germany saw masses

49 of people legitimise the systemic killing of primarily Jews based on the misconceived notion that Jews posed a threat to the sanctity of the ‘white’

(Aryan) race (Perry, 2003). Not only were Jews not deserving of being considered victims, they were subjected to the most inhumane acts under the guise of perverted and misguided ideologies. Prager and Telushkin assert that

‘while hatred of other groups has always existed, no hatred has been as universal, as deep, or as permanent as antisemitism’ (1983, p.17). Gerstenfeld

(2013, pp.187-9) offers countless historical examples of thriving antisemitism, including the persecution of Jews by Egyptians, Greeks and Romans during the pre-Christian era; the massacre of Jews who refused to convert to Christianity during the Crusades; the demonization of Jews advocated by Martin Luther; and culminating in what has been described as the most significant hate crime in modern times, the Holocaust, during which two-thirds of Europe’s Jewish population was exterminated, approximately six million Jews (Levin, 2001).

Watts analysed anti-Jewish attitudes in East and West Germany and concluded that strong antisemitic attitudes persist in West Germany despite ‘four decades of re-education…and a nearly total taboo on public expressions of antisemitism’

(Watts, 1997, p.29).

This historical roots of antisemitism are found in religion. Lord Archbishop of

Canterbury, Justine Welby, wrote in an article for the Holocaust Educational

Trust, that antisemitism an ‘insidious evil’, adding that the ‘habits of antisemitism have been burrowing into European and British culture for as long as we can remember.’ He went on to express:

It is a shameful truth that, through its theological teachings, the Church, which should have offered an antidote, compounded the spread of this virus. The fact that antisemitism has infected the body of the Church is something of which we as Christians must

50 be deeply repentant. We live with the consequences of our history of denial and complicity. (Welby, no date)

England was the first European country to expel Jewish people (in 1290), the exile lasting for 350 years. Nonetheless, Jewish communities have endured centuries of persecution through their persistence and resilient community structures (Leets, 2002). History, and being persecuted for centuries has added to the narrative of who this community is. Antisemitism is a concept which has evolved and changed over centuries, with the historical development of antisemitism first being considered an ethical dilemma, and involving into a religious hatred and finally a racial one (Chanes, 2004). Antisemitism has been a moving concept but has had the effect of Jews mostly remaining enclosed within their own communities. The ghettos, which were initially formed to restrict movement of the Jews, have been perpetuated by the Jewish communities themselves, in choosing to live in close proximity to one another and being self- reliant.

Today, despite comprising only 3% of the American population (Gerstenfeld,

2013), the Jewish community within the US thrives and is an integral part of

American society (Wisse, 1991). In the UK as well, despite comprising only

0.5% of the British population, many Jews have reached prominent positions in various spheres of British life. The Jewish community is considered by the All

Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism to have ‘integrated in a highly successful manner into British life and has made a tremendous contribution to this country since it was readmitted 350 years ago’ (2006, p.3).

51 Nonetheless, whilst antisemitism has dramatically decreased since the atrocities of the Holocaust, and whilst modern British Jews have not suffered any of the large-scale pogroms to which Jews were subjected elsewhere, the

Jewish British community remains affected.

2.1.1 Theoretical Perspectives on the Origins of Hate Crime

Societies tend to enshrine hierarchies of race, religion, gender and sexuality.

Power and domination permeate into our society, which results in marginalisation and exclusion (Perry, 2001). Societies have prevailing notions about the way individuals should conduct themselves, and those who do not conform to these expectations can find themselves victims of hate crime

(Chakraborti, 2014). Omi and Winant state that:

Everyone learns some combination, some version of the rules of racial classification, and of her own racial identity, often without obvious teaching or conscious inculcation. Thus we are inserted in a comprehensively racialised social structure. Race becomes “common sense” – a way of comprehending, explaining and being in the world.’ (1994, p.60)

According to Perry (2001, p.46), this system of classifying one’s identity presumes ‘mutually exclusive categories of belonging. Perry elaborates by commenting that everyone is forced to choose ‘a side’ (2001, p.47). One is a man or a woman, a Jew, Christian or Muslim, black or white. Positioning oneself

(and others) establishes boundaries, creates classification and forms identity.

However, according to Perry (2001, p.47), it also allows for negativity. By positioning oneself favourably, others are judged unfavourably and even

‘aberrant, deviant, inferior’ (2001, p.47). Construction of difference has the effect of assigning an external group inferior and subordinate.

52 Perry coined the term ‘doing difference’ to the ideological structures of society which have ‘deeply embedded notions of difference’ (2001, p.46). According to

Perry, humans construct their identity in accordance to these existing structures of domination. The construction of this identity is a dynamic interactive process whereby individuals test their race, gender, religion with a view to determine how this ‘difference’ will be interpreted by others. Those who are outside the parameters of society’s construction of identity are seen as ‘different’ (Perry,

2001). Hate crimes are the ‘attempts to suppress ‘difference’ as resulting from the threat posed by others to dominant norms’ (Walters, 2011, p.7).

Individuals test whether their behaviour will be accepted as standard behaviour.

‘Whenever we ‘do difference’ – we leave ourselves open to reward or censure’

(Perry, 2001, p.54). For instance, ‘where subordinate groups attempt to redefine their difference, they may become vulnerable to attack’ (Perry, 2001, p.54), as they are no longer conforming to normative conceptions of the group’s identity construct. Perry (2001) provides the example of a subordinate group who step out of the normative characteristics of the group and develop intelligence, initiative and assertiveness. The dominant group, according to

Perry, will seek to repress the subordinate group as they ‘did difference’ inappropriately.

Chakraborti (2015) comments that ‘Perry’s conceptual framework has been possibly the most significant within academic literature. Perry’s framework has broadened the subject of hate crime to be considered in the context of socio- political and psychological backdrops and to acknowledge that hate crimes are part of a process of recurring victimisation moulded by context, structure and

53 agency (Bowling, 1993). This idea has influenced my research design, choosing to explore the effects of antisemitism both within individuals and the community.

Gerstenfeld (2013) explains that Jewish communities have always been minorities in their lived countries and have always held an ‘outsider’ status, reinforced by different custom, dress, language and religion. Gerstenfeld (2013) provides various explanations to describe the anti-Jewish views that are rooted within the cultural fabric of many societies. Gerstenfeld (2013) details the entrenched religious distrust between Jews and other religious groups, antipathy of the seeming socio-economic status enjoyed by Jewish communities in the West and a lack of separation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism (2013, pp.187-9).

In summation, society is rooted with difference. Hierarchies, power and domination is rife among society. However, whilst many may hold prejudicial beliefs and hierarchal ideologies, it is only when these thoughts are acted upon that it becomes a hate crime.

2.1.2 Defining Hate Crime

Defining hate crime is not a straightforward task. Hamm (1998) suggests that there is no global consensus on a definition of hate crime. Lawrence (1999) puts that down to difference in culture, social norms and political agenda. Perry

(2001) states that it is not simple to define hate crime as this concept ‘is dynamic and in a state of constant movement and change, rather than static and fixed’

(Bowling, 1993, p.238). Perry recognises that hate crime is a dynamic, social

54 process involving ‘context, structure and agency’ (Chakraborti, 2015, p.16). It is not a stagnant phenomenon that takes place in ‘a cultural or social vacuum’

(Chakraborti, 2015, p.5). Hate crime varies according to cultural and societal expectations as well as change in time. Therefore, what we regard as hate crime in 21st century UK, may have been regarded elsewhere and at another time, as standard accepted behaviour.

Perry (2001) defines hate crime as:

Hate crime, then, involves acts of violence and intimidation, usually directed toward already stigmatised and marginalised groups. As such, it is a mechanism of power and oppression, intended to reaffirm the precarious hierarchies that characterise a given social order. It attempts to re-create simultaneously the threatened (real or imagined) hegemony of the perpetrator’s group and the ‘appropriate’ subordinate identity of the victim’s group. It is a means of marking both the Self and the Other in such a way as to re-establish their ‘proper’ relative positions, as given and reproduced by broader ideologies and patterns of social and political inequality (2001, p.10).

Whilst the police and the Home Office have embraced the term ‘hate crime’, legislators within the UK have chosen not to use the word ‘hate’ in defining racially aggravated offences. Subsequently, ‘hate crime has no legal status in the UK’ (Iganski, 2008, p.1). Rather, in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, the word ‘hostility’ was chosen. The term hostility will be discussed further in section

2.1.4.

In the UK, the term hate crime was first defined by the Association of Chief

Police Officers (2005) as ‘any hate incident which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate’ (ACPO, 2005, paragraph 2.2.1). This definition was updated relatively recently by the College of Policing (2014) with the only distinction being in the

55 motivating factors as ‘hostility or prejudice’ rather than ‘prejudice or hate’, which are seen as motivating factors in the new guidance (College of Policing, 2014, p.3). The CPS have agreed this to be the common definition. Thus, the agreed working definition of hate crime is: ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice…’

(College of Policing, 2014). With the motivating factor changing to ‘hostility or prejudice’, the offence is much simpler to prove, as it necessitates much less emotion.

Critics of hate crime legislation (Gerstenfeld, 1992) have argued the impossibility of measuring ‘hate’, ‘prejudice’, ‘hostility’ or ‘bias’ and that within the definition, lies the flaw. Gerstenfeld (2013, p.11) claims that there is a misconception, in that hate crimes are not crimes where the offender is required to hate the victim. For Gerstenfeld (2013), hate crimes do not need to be motivated by hatred at all. The term is rather deceptive as it inaccurately suggests that hatred is unvaryingly a unique feature of this type of crime.

2.1.3 Defining Antisemitism

Policy makers can only respond to the problem of antisemitism if a clear definition is in place. The adoption of a definition of antisemitism is a crucial step in ensuring uniformity, consistency and is aimed to prevent hate from developing further. Just as it has been complex to define hate crime, the exact definition of antisemitism has also been the subject of substantial consideration.

Adopting an agreed definition will prevent lack of consistency as to what constitutes antisemitism, it will hold perpetrators accountable for their actions as the term will no longer be ill-defined, and it will have the added benefit of

56 organisations using the term consistently in deciphering whether an incident ought to be regarded as antisemitic.

In May 2016, the 31 countries that form the International Holocaust

Remembrance Alliance (IHRA, 2016), Britain being one of them, adopted the following working definition of antisemitism:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non- Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (IHRA, 2016)

The Government Response to Home Affairs Committee Report: 'Anti-Semitism in the UK’ (2016) recommended that the IHRA definition be adopted, but with additional caveats which they proposed. They initially recommended that the definition should include two statements:

a. It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without

additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

b. It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards

as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli

Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest

antisemitic intent’. (Department for Communities and Local

Government, 2016, p. 4)

These two caveats were originally added to ensure that freedom of speech was maintained within the discourse of the Israel and Palestine debate. However, over-sweeping condemnation of Israel can be problematic, as over condemnation of the acts of the Government of Israel could boarder on being antisemitic, rather than anti-zionist. Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth said:

57 There is obviously an important balance to be struck between freedom of speech and the definition of anti-Semitism. It is important that people bear in mind the definition of anti-Semitism, but ultimately all freedom of speech is constrained in some way. (Bourne, 2018)

In a parliamentary debate most recently (26 June 2018), Lord Bourne of

Aberystwyth was reflecting on the progress made since the inclusion of the definition:

Since then, we have encouraged local authorities to adopt the definition. To date, 135 local authorities across the United Kingdom have done so, as have a number of universities, the National Union of Students and the Union of Jewish Students. In addition, a number of political parties have adopted the definition and the police and CPS already use it as a guide. It is good to see in his place my noble friend Lord Pickles, who has done so much great work in this area. (Bourne, 2018)

As referred to in subsection 1.6a, the Labour party faced much criticism after only accepting the IHRA definition of antisemitism in full, two years following the Government’s adoption.

For the purposes of my research, it is important, in the interests of transparency, to clarify the lines of the debate right from the start. In line with the existing definition of hate crime, in defining antisemitism I adopted an approach which mirrored the guidance provided by the College of Policing. Consequently, the working definition which I used to delineate antisemitism as: any form of hostility or prejudice towards Jews based on their identity. I felt that hostility and prejudice could be expressed in a variety of ways including physical acts, verbal words or acts of prejudice and therefore was broad enough to include all the categories of antisemitism which the respondents within my study had endured.

The second part of the definition, ‘based on their identity’ was intended to clarify that in order for an incident to be considered as antisemitic, the motive behind

58 the incident is required to be based on some aspect of the group affiliation of the victim. Chapter 4 will outline the types of antisemitic incidents which respondents have been subjected to.

2.1.4 Current Legislation on Hate Crime

Thus far, I have examined where hate crime manifests itself, the theoretical perspectives behind the origins of hate crime and the most updated definition of hate crime. However, in order to ascertain what recourse and protection is available to victims of hate crime, it is important to be familiar with the laws that exist which regulate the domestic legal framework of hate crime.

Following the murder of Steven Lawrence and the publication of the

Macpherson report (Home Office, 1999), the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act came into force allowing for offenders to be prosecuted for racially aggravated crimes. Under section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, offences are classified as racially aggravated if:

a. At the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after

doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence

hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership)

of a racial group; or

b. The offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members

of a racial group based on their membership of that group.

A number of concerns have been raised in relation to the term ‘hostility’. Walter

(2013) claims that in the absence of a legal definition or any standard direction on its parameters, the term ‘hostility’ is subjected to different interpretations.

59 Some critics argued that the definition was too broad and would capture the wrong type of perpetrator. For instance, Gadd (2009) argued that this offence could capture low-level expressions of hostility expressed in the heat of the moment, rather than deep-seated hatred. As a researcher, it was important for me to hear the voices of the sample and therefore I felt that using the word hostility was broad enough to cover all nature of offending. I wanted to capture the picture in its totality and had I used a limiting term, the participants may not have shared certain incidents with me.

Under British law, Jews are considered to be a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-

Lee [U.K. House of Lords, 1983]. As Jews are considered to be a racial group, it follows that prosecution for antisemitic incidents could be brought under s.28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. However, there is uncertainty and a lack of direction as to whether antisemitic incidents should be prosecuted or recorded by police forces as religious or racist incidents. The Crown

Prosecution Service has not offered a clear definition providing guidance on whether the case should be prosecuted as a racial or religiously aggravated offence. This confusion originates by the introduction of The Anti-Terrorism,

Crime and Security Act 2001, which signalled the introduction of new religiously aggravated offences.

Religiously motivated hate crime has been a subject of mounting importance to policy makers and academics, culminating in additional political and legal interventions. A number of Acts have passed in the last two decades that provide increased legal protection to vulnerable religious minorities. More recently, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which amended the Public

60 Order Act 1986, introduced provisions to guard against the instigation of hatred on the grounds of religion. The Act came about following the large-scale abuse directed at Muslims following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The

Act provides protection against threatening words or conduct intended to incite hatred against people on the basis of their faith.

However, the scope of this provision is limited when comparing it to the broader model of legislation in place for racial hatred. The equivalent protection is not available. The scope of protection for religiously aggravated offences were limited following mounting pressures to derail the initial proposals of this Bill.

The Bill originally outlawed words and behaviour that insulted or abused religious groups (as required within racial hatred legislation). Those provisions were later dropped, as the Bill was subjected to much criticism (Chakraborti and

Garland, 2015). The offence remained limited to the prosecution needing to prove that the perpetrator used threatening words or behaviour. Second, the prosecution is required to prove that offenders intended to stir up religious hatred. The inclusion of a subjective burden of purposive behaviour (rather than using the test of ‘likely to’) makes the rate of successful convictions less likely and subsequently limits the scope of protection.

The most potent criticism was that introducing this Bill would stifle freedom of speech (Thomson, 2012). Critics of the Act argued that ‘The Religious Hatred

Act should be opposed by those who value free speech’ (Hare, 2006, p.538).

Rowan Atkinson, was one of the many writers and comedians who felt that this

Act would prevent them from criticising and joking about religion, said:

To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational or ridiculous. But to criticise their religion – that is right. That is

61 freedom. And a law that attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas, is a very peculiar law indeed (Gilbey, 2004).

Thomson (2012) argued that freedom of speech is a vital component of life.

Barendt suggested that ‘the most durable argument for a free speech principle has been based on the importance of open discussion to the discovery of truth

(2005, p.7). Parekh argued that free speech is necessary for the development of self-knowledge: ‘it is a necessary condition of free thought and critical self- consciousness’ (2006, p.216).

The new provisions attempted to conform with the principles of free speech whilst providing protection to victims of religiously aggravated offences.

However, a delicate balance needs to be struck between freedom of speech and the freedom to be protected from the harm that such speech incites.

Chapter 7 will refer to a couple of instances, whereby the CPS have refused to prosecute offenders of antisemitism. In all probability, the CPS must have viewed that the offenders did not meet the evidential stage whereby prosecutors need to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against the suspect. It was the CAA who brought these private prosecutions.

As many British Jews are not observant Jews, the reality is that many British

Jews regard their Jewish identity as an ethnic rather than a religious identity

(Iganski, 2007). Therefore, one would have thought that it is more accurate to classify them as a racial group rather than a religious group. However, both categories of classification seem to be used by police forces (Iganski, 2007). It

62 seems that recording anti-Jewish incidents is filled with confusion and misconception.

Regardless of which subcategory antisemitic incidents fall under (religious or racial prejudice), McGhee (2005, p.32) views hate crime legislation in the UK as ‘part of the wider strategy…of cooling down group tensions and loyalties so that we can all move to the common ground of shared values’. Whilst legislative and policy change in the UK has been effective, the development of hate crime legislation within the UK has been described as ‘piecemeal’ (Tatchell, 2002).

Tatchell (2002) argues that various communities have been, and continue to be excluded, from hate care legislations (travellers / refugee communities). In

1997, when the government was considering introducing a new offence of

‘racially aggravated’ offence, Tatchell (2002) strongly advocated for the law to be broadened so as to encompass hate crimes affecting all vulnerable groups and was disappointed when the government singled out victims of race hate. It was only in 2012 that an explicit broader hate crime protection was afforded to a larger number of vulnerable groups (Home Office, 2016, p.2). This will be examined in greater length in section 2.6 when I discuss the concept of victim.

The respondents in my research, if victimised, did not consider themselves victims of racial hatred. Rather they would consider themselves victims of religious hatred. The respondents identify strongly as being religious Jews, and for most, if not all, being a religious Jew is the most fundamental part of their identity. However, the Orthodox Jewish community forms 16% of the overall

Jewish population (Census, 2011) and therefore if there was a unified

63 classification category, it should probably be one of racial hatred, collaborating with the self-identification of the majority of British Jewry.

2.1.5 Enhanced Punishment

Hate crime legislation prescribes higher sentences compared with the basic offence. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, if an offender commits an offence and demonstrates that, in so doing, it was motivated by hostility on the grounds of race, that aggravated offence is punishable by a higher sentence

(Law Commission, 2013).

The enhanced punishment provision has proved to be controversial (Iganski,

2008). Levin and McDevitt (2002), who are in favour of enhanced sentences, view that hate crime offences are different in nature and therefore additional sentences should be imposed. The reasoning which they provide for hate crime offences being different are that hate crimes are targeted not at individuals, but rather at communities at large; its potential scale of harm is therefore larger.

Secondly, the characteristic which is ‘offensive’ to the perpetrator is one that is immutable; therefore, the victim will potentially have ongoing fear of future victimisation. Finally, the victim himself / herself is interchangeable and therefore the offence is limitless in scope. Craig (2002) and Iganski (2001) justify enhanced punishment on the basis that hate crimes have the potential to enflame retaliation by victimised groups and hence would serve as a deterrent effect.

Critics of enhanced punishment for offences of hate crime claim that mounting punishment is incongruent with the core value of democracy; the right of

64 expression and freedom of speech (Iganski 2008, Boeckmann et al., 2002).

There is certainly a balance to be found. The right of freedom of expression needs to be balanced against the right of individuals not to be victimised and to be at liberty to be equally protected by the law.

Nevertheless, enhanced sentencing legislation has a powerful symbolic role in communicating social and political values to society. It is a means by which robust disapproval of hate crimes can be expressed. More severe punishments make a symbolic statement that certain behaviour is unacceptable within society (Sullway, 2004). Chakraborti (2012) highlights that the process of criminalising the offender’s behaviour sends a message of solidarity to victims of hate crime and marginalised communities. McGhee (2005) echoes these thoughts and states that hate crime legislation is intended to send two robust messages: that the conduct will not be tolerated and that the experiences of the victims will be profoundly considered.

It will be seen that within my data, there was no mention of respondents seeking higher levels of retribution. However, the relevance of this to my research is that it would act as a reassuring factor for the respondents to know that by putting in place enhanced sentencing legislation, antisemitism is not to be tolerated on a governmental level.

2.2 Theme 2: The extent of hate crime in the UK

Statistics on hate crime offences stem mainly from two official sources: police recorded crime (Association of Chief Police Officers - replaced by the National

Police Chiefs’ Council) and the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW).

65 Hate crime statistics show a genuine upward trend over the years including specifically religiously motivated hate crime.

The Home Office Report, Hate Crime, England and Wales 2015/2016 (2016), documented that within this period, there were 62,518 incidents of hate crime recorded by the police, an increase of 19% from the previous year. Of these,

7% were religiously motivated, an increase of 34% (making a total of 4,400 religiously motivated incidents in 2015/2016). A further increase was documented the subsequent year in the Home Office Report, Hate Crime,

England and Wales 2016/2017 (2017), whereby 80,393 incidents of hate crime were recorded by the police, a further increase of 29%. Of these, 7% were religiously motivated an increase of 35% (making a total of 5949 religiously motivated incidents in 2016/2017).

The Home Office Report (2016) suggests that the ‘increases in race and religious hate crimes may be partly due to higher levels of hate crime following specific highly publicised incidents (or trigger events)’ (2016, p.5). For instance, there was a noticeable increase in the number of hate crimes recorded across

Great Britain in the wake of the summer’s EU referendum campaign (BBC,

2016). Home office figures (The Home Office Report, 2016) revealed ‘a sharp increase in the number of racially or religiously aggravated crimes recorded by police in England and Wales following the EU referendum’ (41% compared to the same month the year before) (2016, p.1). There were 3,886 such crimes logged in July 2015, rising to 5,468 in July 2018, according to the Home Office.

66 In response to the increase in hate crime, the government published Action

Against Hate in July 2016, which is aimed to address hate crime until the year

2020 (Home Office, 2016). It outlines the steps which the government needs to take in order to prevent and respond to hate crime, including encouraging increase in reporting of hate crime incidents.

Whilst there have been other drives by the government to improve both the reporting and recording of Hate Crime (Home Office Report, 2016), it is recognised (Herek, 1989) that hate crime is less likely to be reported than other forms of crime (43% of hate crime incidents were not reported in the 2013/2014

CSEW and 48% in the CSEW of 2014/2015). For instance, the 4,400 religiously motivated incidents which came to the attention of the police in the year

2015/2016 (Home Office Report, 2016) present a large increase from previous years and yet this figure remains a small percentage in comparison to the figures published by the CSEW. The CSEW last published a combined survey for a three-year period (2012-2015). The Home Office report (2015) states that of the estimated 220,000 hate crimes reported to the CSEW, there was an average of 38,000 religiously motivated incidents per year (totalling 17% of incidents over this 3-year period). The vast discrepancy between the 4,400 religiously motivated incidents which came to the attention of the police versus the 38,000 incidents reported to the CSEW highlights the low police reporting rates.

Several reasons have been put forward to explain low reporting rates. Bowling

(1999) and Clancy et. al., (2001) have suggested that lack of confidence in the police has resulted in under-reporting. Others suggest fear of double

67 victimisation by the police not taking the case seriously (Perry 2001), the time consumed in reporting a hate crime and the level of emotional strength required to share the distressing experience (Chakraborti, Garland and Hardy, 2014) as reasons for underreporting. Herek et. al., (2002) describe the way victims made a complex decision balancing whether reporting the incident was likely to produce satisfactory outcomes versus being a time consuming, risky, unpleasant experience.

Labour MP Jack Dromey, previously the Shadow Police Minister, expressed concern that the scale of the increase in underreporting may in fact be greater than feared, since he believes many victims are too frightened to come forward.

‘The UN said (in October 2016) that the problem of underreporting hate crime persists in Britain and the government’s own hate-crime strategy sets out to increase the reporting of hate crime, acknowledging one of the biggest challenges to the police in tackling it’ (Travis, 2016).

In the next section of this chapter, I will describe the extent of antisemitism. The statistics referred to below show the magnitude of the phenomenon and the extent to which Jews are subjected to antisemitism.

2.2.1 The extent of antisemitism in the UK

Up until a decade ago, there was a lack of official published data of antisemitic incidents (Iganski 2007). Iganski (2006), in giving evidence at the All Party Inter-

Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, stated that statistical measures of antisemitism do not capture the actual number of incidents and figures are

68 understated. Iganski (2007) repeated these beliefs by asserting that antisemitic crimes are not sufficiently monitored or dealt with by the police in the UK.

Prior to the 2006 All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism (APPG), only

8 of 44 regional police forces across the UK had a separate category for recording antisemitic crimes. The Report of the APPG described this as ‘a matter of concern’ (2006, p.4). Since the APPG, there has been an agreement by all police forces to record antisemitic hate crimes, providing for greater transparency.

Due to a governmental request made in response to the 2006 APPG report, the first official national statistics on antisemitism were published in 2010, covering incidents recorded in 2009. The subsequent Report of All Party Parliamentary

Inquiry into Antisemitism (2015) welcomed the development of better reporting and highlighted that ‘the police had a firmer grip on antisemitic incidents’ (2015, p.14).

In the Report of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism (2015),

Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) made submissions that whilst race hate crime overall did not increase, there had been a 221% increase in antisemitic incidents in 2014, when compared to 2013 (p.114). This rising pattern was also recorded by the CST.

As shown, antisemitic incidents recorded by the police and the CST have been escalating. The 2014 Antisemitic Incident Report published by the CST, showed a record high number of antisemitic incidents. The recorded incidents doubled

69 since 2013 recording 1,168 incidents during 2014, compared with 535 incidents in 2013. The 2014 report of the CST highlights that this sharp rise was attributable to reactions to overseas events. ‘Trigger events’ which take place in Israel and Gaza, cause transitory, yet noteworthy, spikes in antisemitic incidents in the UK. The time period of the Israel and Gaza conflict that lasted over the months of July and August 2014 showed unusual number of antisemitic incidents in the UK, with July 2014, showing the highest ever monthly total of 314 antisemitic incidents (compared with 59 recorded incidents in July of 2013). Further, recorded incidents in August 2014 totalled 228 antisemitic incidents (compared with 48 incidents in August of 2013). A similar pattern of drastic increases took place in 2009 (Israel and Gaza conflict) and

2006 (Israel and Lebanon conflict).

Another example of the ‘ripple effect’ from the Middle East was seen on the 18

November 2014. On the same day that four men were tragically shot during the morning prayers in Jerusalem, the CST recorded 11 antisemitic incidents in the

UK, a remarkably high daily total.

There may be further factors explaining the sharp increase in antisemitic incidents over that last few years. It may be due to the fact that since 2012, the

CST has operated an incident exchange programme with the Metropolitan

Police Service, whereby CST and the MPS exchange all antisemitic incident reports received by either agency anonymously. For instance, in 2014, 336 incidents were reported to the CST by this method. Moreover, there is heightened awareness of the work of the CST, which is further influenced by various sources of reporting, such as online incident reporting facilities.

70 Therefore, it cannot be ruled out as an alternative explanation, that the increase in incidents is due to an amplified pervasiveness among Jews to report the incident.

In continuing to examine local statistics, the year 2016 showed a record number of antisemitic incidents, totalling 1,309 incidents, a 36% increase from 2015.

Whereas previous record highs (such as in 2014) were caused by reaction to incidents overseas, there was no single trigger event to cause this record high number of incidents (CST Antisemitic Incidents Report, 2016). CST report says that long-term trends are ‘at a sustained higher level since the summer of 2014’ when there was a sharp spike in response to the conflict in Gaza. Dave Rich, of the CST, wrote in the Jewish News ‘Normally when antisemitic incidents rise it is because of a specific trigger event, a war of Israel. This year, though there is ‘no obvious single explanation’ (Rich, 2016).

The most recent Antisemitic Incidents Report 2017 showed similar trends, with an unprecedented number of antisemitic incidents rising to 1382 incident, a 3% increase from the previous year. The record total in 2017 saw over 100 antisemitic incidents recorded every month from January to October inclusive.

Analysis of the data below illustrates correlation between the antisemitic data recorded by the police and the CST, in that antisemitic offending is on the rise.

71 Recorded Antisemitic Hate Crime Data in UK

YEAR POLICE CST 2009 703 931 2010 488 646 2011 440 609 2012/2013 385 650 2013/2014 318 535 2014/2015 629 1168 2015/2016 786 960 2016/2017 Not 1309 published 2017 Not 1382 published 2018 Not 1652 published

Table 1: Recorded Antisemitic Hate Crime Data in UK (Home Office, 2016; CST, 2018c, p.42).

2.2.2 Difficulties in establishing the extent of antisemitic incidents

It is recognised that antisemitic incidents, like other forms of hate crime, are significantly underreported. The FRA (European Union Agency for

Fundamental Rights) (2013) survey of Jewish experiences and perceptions of antisemitism within the European Union, found that 46% of British Jews who were victims to antisemitic vandalism failed to report these incidents, 57% of

British Jews who were victims of violence or threats of violence failed to report these incidents and 72% of British Jews who were victims of harassment failed to report those incidents.

The Home Secretary stated in the government’s most recent ‘Action Against

Hate’ publication (Action Against Hate: the UK government’s plan for tackling hate crime, 2016), that ‘Jewish people from the Charedi (Orthodox) community are less likely than other sections of the Jewish community to report hate crimes

72 to the authorities or to other section of our partners such as the CST’. Working with groups who underreport – such as Charedi Jews – was listed as one of the five key aims of the report.

By way of example, Iganski (quoted in the All Parliamentary Group Against

Antisemitism, 2015, p.42) in giving oral evidence to the Report of the All

Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, stated that his students found that numerous visibly Jewish individuals chose not to report abuse. From a group of 50 visibly Jewish individuals, Iganski’s students calculated four times the number of incidents which the CST reported within a year. My findings too, will reveal that permeating across my research, was the extent of underreporting among the Orthodox Jewish community.

Therefore, whilst there is an obvious rise in antisemitic incidents, these statistics fail to analyse the frequency and nature of incidents experienced by divergent subsections of the Jewish community and according to the CST, ‘should be taken as being indicative of general trends, rather than absolute measures of the number of incidents that actually take place’ (CST Antisemitic Incident

Report, 2014, p.14).

When mapping the contours of antisemitism, it is important to be familiar with the actual extent of the phenomenon. The preceding discussion illustrates that antisemitic incidents have seen a sharp rise in the UK. ‘Ever since crime targeting British Jews began to surge in 2014, each successive year has set a new record for antisemitic crime’ (CAA, 2017). However, these figures also reflect that statistics are not absolute for various reasons, including

73 complications with the monitoring of the incidents and high levels of underreporting. This section concludes that whilst the scale of the phenomenon is showing an upward trend, the actual extent of the problem cannot be determined with certainty.

2.2.3 Typology of Antisemitic Incidents

The CST classifies antisemitic incidents into five distinct categories: assault, criminal damage, threats, abusive behaviour and antisemitic literature. In the year 2017, 1382 antisemitic incidents took place - the highest annual total which the CST had recorded. The most pertinent category of antisemitism that year was the 1038 incidents of abusive behaviour (verbal or written abuse). There were 145 violent antisemitic assaults, the highest total the CST has recorded in this category, but none were considered extreme violence (which in grievous bodily harm or threat to life). Incidents of damage and desecration to Jewish property totalled 92 incidents. Incidents of direct threat totalled 95 and 12 incidents were recorded in the category of literature (mass produced of antisemitic mailing, rather than individual hate mail).

The number of incidents recorded, falling under each of these categories during

2017, is set out in a diagram below.

74

Figure 1: CST’s Typology of Antisemitic Incidents (CST, 2017; p.42)

Antisemitic incidents range from being mission incidents acted out by extremist groups to incidents which are part of ‘everyday life’ (Iganski, 2008). On the one end of the spectrum, Jewish communities have long been the targets of terrorist of different and varied political and religious motivations. Levin and McDevitt

(2002) have claimed that only a small number of antisemitic incidents are the responsibility of extremist groups. The All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into

Antisemitism (2006) observed that ‘during the 20th century, the far right was the dominant source of antisemitism in the UK’ and although it continues to articulate conspiracy theories about Jews, concluded that ‘there is no room for complacency…the overt threat from the far right may not be as significant as it once was (All Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, 2006, pp.24-

26).

75 More recently there seems to have been a change in perception about the potential threat of a terrorist attack. The CST (2015) continue to be on alert that there is the continuous potential threat of anti-Jewish terrorism, primarily from jihadists groups, directed at British Jews (CST, 2015, p.11). The most recent

All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism (2016) recognised that there is a continuous threat of terrorism against the Jewish community and support continued funding by the government to provide security for Jewish institutions.

On a broader scale, there is an increased threat faced by the whole of UK society. David Cameron revealed that seven terrorist plots were prevented in the UK in 2015 (Wilkinson, 2015). The UK national threat level has been classified as ‘severe’ since August 2014, inferring that an attack is ‘highly likely’

(BBC, 2014) in Britain, including against the Jewish community. The national threat level classification was further raised to the optimal ‘critical’ category following the Manchester Arena suicide bombing in May 2017 (Phipps, 2017), but reduced back to ‘severe’ in September 2017.

Whilst there is a continued threat of terrorism against the Jewish community,

Iganski, Kielinger and Paterson (2005) claim that the majority of antisemitic incidents often occur as part of ‘everyday’ life rather than being the subject of extreme political groups. Through their analysis of incidents recorded by the

Metropolitan Police Service between 2001-2004, they ascertained that most antisemitic incidents are considered ‘low-level’ crime, such as theft, name- calling, criminal damage, all of which are committed as part of everyday life.

Iganski (2008) asserts that the majority of antisemitic incidents are not prompted by ideological conviction but rather display antisemitism which lies

76 beneath the surface of these individuals. According to Iganski (2008), when the opportunity arises, the bigotry rises to the surface for some people and is often a reflex response during a chance random encounter. These encounters could be commonplace in everyday, for instance an irritation, conflict or grievance, but present a particular opportunity for the perpetrator to express his / her bigotry when the person involved is Jewish (Iganski, 2008, pp. 26-31).

Therefore, we learn from this that, on the one hand, the majority of antisemitic incidents are low level, and yet on the other hand, there is a genuine risk of a terrorist attack. According to Chakraborti and Garland (2015), these ‘everyday’ encounters should not be undervalued and needs to be seen in the context of the broader cultural hostility. Chakraborti (2009) states that, regarding these low-level experiences as not being particularly serious, discounts its proper context; ‘the historical patterns of prejudice; the lived experiences of individuals and communities targeted; the dynamics of the local population’ and the resulting discourse (p.123).

A further factor to bear in mind is the ‘broken window’ theory developed by

Wilson and Kelling (1982) which claims that a community which tolerates broken windows and graffiti (low level criminality), opens the door to far more serious offences and subsequently paves the way for greater intolerance and more serious expressions of hate crime. The government recognises that it as a ‘vital role’ in tackling hate crime (Challenge it, Report it, Stop it, 2012). Despite this, antisemitism has been allowed to thrive under the opposition’s leadership so that the actual source from which help is supposed to originate from is in fact where antisemitism is manifesting itself in the most apparent of ways.

77 Therefore, if these ‘everyday’ antisemitic incidents are tolerated, the Labour party’s stance on antisemitism and their lack of willingness to make a bold statement against antisemitism, has created a broken window which will filter into society. In a recent panel discussion on hate crime, Deborah Mitchell warned that it’s the accumulation of minor hostilities which can erode the quality of life (Mitchell, quoting Mark Walters, 2017). Therefore, it is paramount that these minor hostilities are not tolerated.

When comparing the obvious subjugation of Jews during the atrocities of the

Holocaust with the subtle but present acts of antisemitism which are prevalent today, antisemitism can be viewed as relatively low level criminality. However, the overall upward trend of antisemitic incidents, coupled with the potential threat of terrorism may be perceived as a genuine cause of concern for the

Jewish community. This theme is the starting point of my research as the resurgence of antisemitism forms the foundation for me to explore perceptions of antisemitism and the types of antisemitic incidents which Orthodox Jewish individuals have been subjected to.

2.3 Theme 3: Perceptions of Antisemitism in the Literature

Outlining the extent of antisemitism is the first reference point. However, exploring whether the increase in antisemitic incidents is effecting the British

Jewish community gives meaning to these figures. What do Jews actually think of the current resurgence of antisemitism? Has it even been noted by them? Is there a sense of fear among the Jewish community? Although there is a great deal of research and investigation into the subject of hate crime, very few academic studies focus on antisemitism within the UK from a qualitative

78 perspective. To date, the voices of Orthodox British Jews on antisemitism has received sparse attention in scholarly literature. However, other than conclusions that can be drawn from CST statistics, there are some quantitative studies, which investigated perceptions and experiences of antisemitism. The

FRA (2013) explored perceptions and experiences of antisemitism within the

EU and the JPR (2014) which surveyed perceptions and experiences of antisemitism with the UK. Both studies have explored this topic from a quantitative perspective. The third and unique body of literature is the study of

Sweiry (2014), who explored perceptions and experiences of antisemitism within the UK from a qualitative perspective. This section will reveal the gaps which exist within the literature from a qualitative perspective and will highlight the contribution of the present study to this topic.

Using online surveys to explore perceptions of antisemitism within the UK, JPR

(2014) demonstrated that respondents were virtually equally divided in whether they perceive antisemitism to be an issue in the UK. 37% of respondents maintained that antisemitism is ‘a fairly big problem’ whereas 47% felt that it is

‘not a very big problem’. They reported that ‘there are other social and economic problems which are regarded as more problematic than antisemitism by a large proportion of respondents’ (JPR, p.14).

Nevertheless, when this data was used to generate a much larger comparative data across European Jewish population (FRA, 2013), the perceptions of British

Jews were put towards the bottom end of the scale in terms of graveness. On the whole, the survey indicates that, in comparison to other Western European countries, the level of antisemitism in the UK is considerably lower and that

79 subsequently the level of anxiety is much lower among British Jewry (FRA,

2013). Apart from the United Kingdom and Latvia, antisemitism was perceived to be ‘a very big’ or ‘a fairly big problem’ in all other European Union member states (FRA, 2013, p.15).

Assessing the level of fear of attack was integral to the study. The levels of worry that a physical attack would take place in the 12 months which followed, varied significantly. Whilst 60% of respondents in France feared an antisemitic attack, only 17% of respondents in the UK felt the same (FRA, 2013, p.32).

Therefore, the FRA survey (2013) demonstrated that Britain remains a considerably more accepting and tolerant environment for Jews than certain other parts of Europe. The respondents in my study did comment on whether they considered Britain to be a safe place to live.

2.3.1 Limitations of the research on perceptions

The aforementioned FRA survey’s findings (2013) showed some discrepancies by UK respondents. For instance, the survey results revealed that the level of worry of becoming a victim of an antisemitic incident is higher than the actual experience among the respondents (28% of UK respondents were worried about becoming victims of antisemitism whereas only 17% of respondents had been victimised).

The variation of the results was not followed up with respondents and the discrepancy remained unclear until a recent survey was conducted by Staetsky

(2017) which attempted to answer the fundamental question that despite relatively low rates of antisemitism within the UK (when compared to other

80 European countries), the level of anxiety among Jews is high. How does one explain the dissonance between the relatively low levels of antisemitism with the high levels of anxiety? This survey, which encapsulated 5,466 observations

(on-line and face-to-face), found that approximately 2% of British population can be categorised as ‘hard-core’ antisemites (Staetsky, 2017, p.16). Staetsky

(2017) posits that 30% of the British population hold at least one antisemitic attitude, at varying degrees of intensity (Staetsky, 2017, p.24). Staetsky explains that:

This does not mean that 30% of the population in Great Britain is antisemitic. A majority of people who agreed with just one negative statement about Jews in this survey also agreed with one or more positive statements about Jews, suggesting that the existence of one antisemitic or stereotypical belief in a person’s thinking need not indicate a broader, deeper prejudice towards Jews. Rather, the 30% figure captures the current level of the diffusion of antisemitic ideas in British society, and offers an indication of the likelihood of British Jews encountering such ideas. (Staetsky, 2017, p.4)

If British Jews are likely to encounter someone who expresses an antisemitic attitude fairly frequently (even though they may not necessarily be antisemitic), it would erode feelings of security and may result in British Jews feelings anxious about their identity. This goes some way in explaining the dissonance between the level of worry of becoming a victim and the number of those actually victimised. For instance, overhearing antisemitic stereotyping will have the effect of increasing anxiety levels, but these often do not amount to an offence. This demonstrates the frequency which British Jews are likely to encounter someone who expresses an antisemitic attitude and therefore goes some way towards explaining the reason British Jews may feel anxious.

81 The qualitative research of Sweiry (2014) is perhaps more instructive in that it explored the experiences and responses of 50 Jews across Britain using in- depth interviews. The sample used was diverse accessing Jews all across

Britain from differing religious, social, geographic, gender and political lines.

The findings show that antisemitism and its impacts were significantly dissimilar for different Jews across Britain. The effects of victimisation were less pronounced for religious Jews than the impact felt by the more secular respondents. The latter group, perceived themselves to be fully integrated into

British society and therefore felt excluded and shunned from mainstream British society when victimised.

2.3.2 The case of Orthodox Jews

My study focused solely on Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Jewish individuals are considered at highest risk of attack due to their visibility. It was on this basis that perceptions of Orthodox Jews on antisemitism were compared with those of non-Orthodox Jews (JPR, 2014). This survey argued that British Orthodox

Jews are measurably more anxious about, and susceptible to antisemitic incidents, than non-Orthodox British Jews (JPR, 2014, pp.28-29). It showed that over half of all Orthodox Jews in Britain are worried about becoming a victim of an antisemitic act, and that they are more than twice as likely as non-

Orthodox Jews to have experienced antisemitic harassment or discrimination’

(JPR, 2014, pp.28-29). The survey results revealed that nearly two-thirds of

Orthodox Jews believe antisemitism to be a problem in the UK, compared with less than half of non-Orthodox Jews. It illustrated that four in ten of Orthodox

Jews avoid certain places out of fear for their safety as Jews, compared to a quarter of the non-Orthodox (JPR, 2014, pp.28-29). Certain deductions were

82 made from this data. For instance, concerns of facing future victimisation correlated with the strength of the respondents’ religiosity level. Therefore, the

Orthodox Jews were most worried of future victimisation whilst those respondents who expressed low religiosity were least worried (FRA 2013, p.33).

The sample in the JPR study (2014) is problematic. The authors sought to illustrate that there is a disparity in perceptions between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox. However, only 4% of the respondents belong to a synagogue

(one of the main prerequisites of being considered to be ‘Orthodox’) and yet

16% of the sample described themselves as ‘Orthodox’ despite the lack of synagogue membership (JPR, 2014, p.10). This discrepancy between synagogue membership and self-description remains unexplained. The extent to which this sample is characteristic of the Orthodox community cannot be established with conviction.

Indeed, the findings in my study differs from this deduction and show that the level of religiosity does not correlate with the level of fear of future victimisation.

Sweiry’s research (2014) also contradicted this deduction. Sweiry (2014) observed that despite higher frequency of incidents within the Orthodox Jewish community, the harmful impacts which was described by the less observant, was not reflected amongst the Orthodox respondents. Whilst respondents expressed fear, anxiety, anger and despair, being victimised did not present the same challenges to the Orthodox respondents, which Sweiry (2014) attributed to their strong minority identity.

83 While Sweiry’s research (2014) is unique in its kind, the obvious limitation of his study is that the data could be considered out of context. Sweiry’s collection of data lasted over a period of 5 years and therefore it is to be argued that there would be a large variation in perceptions depending on world-wide incidents taking place. In contrast, as my research was collected over a period of less than 6 months and compiled over a limited period of time, the data would be more homogenous in exploring the connection between perceptions and their overall global context. Moreover, the present study will take the current research a step further as it will test the perceptions and experiences of the

Orthodox Jewish community exclusively. It will explore what coping mechanisms were adopted to deal with the victimisation and show that the majority of respondents, unlike Sweiry’s sample, chose to accept the victimisation and not adopt any preventative measures. Finally, the theoretical perspective adopted in my study, is not limited to personal perceptions, but also takes account of the structures around it (by structures I mean hearing from

Councillors, police officers, Rabbis and Shomrim volunteers).

In starting to summarise this section, the quantitative studies explored perceptions and experiences within specific EU member states and the qualitative study explored perceptions across Britain, but none have focused specifically on London nor exclusively on the Orthodox Jewish community. My thesis will explore perceptions and experiences of the Orthodox Jewish community on antisemitism within London alone. London today is more diverse than ever before. It is known for its cosmopolitan nature and the fact that it embraces a wide range of various cultures, races, religions and lifestyles.

84 Therefore, it sets the context for exploring the hate crime experienced by one of its minority groups.

In summary, whilst there is vast amount of research on antisemitism, there is very little empirical research specifically on the antisemitic victimisation of

Orthodox Jews. Other than this one meaningful qualitative study, it is largely absent from academic debates and analysis. Whilst the quantitative research is useful in informing my research, it tells us little about the way Orthodox Jews in London experience victimisation and the personal and communal meanings they attach to them. I shall examine the topic from a qualitative perspective, allowing the personal dimensions of emotional responses to be illuminated, hence providing richer meaning to the data. This thesis aims to offer much needed empirical data about the nature and impact of antisemitism to both the individuals as well as the community.

2.4 Theme 4: Impact of Hate Crime

Having explored existing literature on perceptions of antisemitism, the linked theme is to explore existing literature on the way victims of antisemitism are impacted. Two overarching findings are well established in the literature regarding the impact of hate crimes. The first is that the potential scale of harm of hate crime offences is greater than the same crimes without the bias element

(Dzelme, 2008). Second, that hate crimes are described to impact both individuals and communities (Craig, 2002; Dzelme, 2008). I will be using references from outside the literature review such as surveys, as they have the capability of reaching out to a large number of individuals.

85 2.4.1 Individual-effects

The impact of hate crime on victims has been compared with the impact of terrorism. Hate crime has been described as a form of terrorism as these offences incite inner turmoil and terror within the victims (Herek et al., 2002).

Studies show that victims of bias crimes portrayed considerably higher levels of psychological distress (intrusive thoughts, anger, feelings of helplessness, anxiety, stress and depression) than victims of non-bias crimes (Herek et al.,

2002).

Dzelme (2008), who conducted a study with victims of LGBT and Roma victims, detailed the distinct impact that hate crime has on its victims. The detrimental, psychological effects of hate crime on the victims may impair self-esteem, place a strain on personal relationships, restrict social activities and cause social withdrawal as well as mental health problems.

A further study employing secondary analysis of data from the British Crime

Survey for England and Wales, which analysed three yearly reports of the

British Crime Survey (2009 – 2012) concluded that victims of hate crime were over twice as likely as victims of other crimes to state that they had been affected ‘very much’ by the offence (Iganski and Lagou, 2014). Data collected since, by the CSEW, highlights that victims of hate crime tended to be more effected than victims of crime overall. The Home Office report (2015) shows that ‘hate crime victims were also more than twice as likely to experience fear, difficultly sleeping, anxiety or panic attacks or depression compared with victims of overall CSEW crime’ (Home Office, 2015, p.22). Hein et al., (2013) echoed

86 these views and determined that hate crimes are characteristically more violent than other crimes and have damaging mental health consequences.

Whilst research on the impact of hate crime has been dominated by small scale qualitative studies, there is a small body of empirical evidence about the extent and nature of any differential effects of hate crime. Garcia and McDevitt (1999) empirically demonstrated that the impact on victims of hate crime - in the case of LGBT victims - exceeds the impact on ordinary victims - victims of hate crime experience deeper psychological and emotional effects than victims of crimes that do not have the ‘hate element’ to them. From a questionnaire survey of

2,259 LGBT respondents, findings showed that victims of hate crime ‘appeared more likely to regard the world as unsafe, to view people as malevolent, to experience a relatively low sense of personal mastery’ (Herek, Gillis and

Cogan, 1999, p.949).

Hall cited the 2002 Herek, Cogan and Gillis study of homophobic crime victims in the USA as one of the few empirical studies that addresses the issue. They were “struck by the physical and psychological brutality of the hate crimes described… it results in heightened and prolonged psychological distress after the crime” (Herek et al., 2002, p.336).

Other emotional impacts have been raised by those victimised. Some referred to the shame they had experienced (Lerner, 1980). Lerner (1980) quoted a

Jewish man who felt shame as he learned of the atrocities of WWII around

Europe. The root of the shame was not shame at the behaviour of the

87 perpetrators, but rather shame of the event itself and the fact that this could happen to Jews made him feel ashamed as a Jew.

Attempts have been made to provide theoretical explanation for the greater psychological harm suffered by victims of hate crime. Janoff-Bulman (1979) distinguished between behavioural self-blame, where the individual attributes the offence to one’s behaviour and characterological self-blame, where the individual attributes the offence to one’s characteristics. According to Janoff-

Bulman, behavioural self-blame (for instance, berating oneself for being in a particular neighbourhood in the night) allows an individual to re-establish control and to try and prevent further victimisation. Janoff-Bulman believes that very little can be altered regarding one’s characteristics and therefore characterological self-blame implies future victimisation (1979).

This model sets to explain the greater harm perceived by victims of hate crime.

Victims of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or a particular religion, have certain immutable characteristics and as these are not subject to change, are likely to result in victims experiencing greater levels of distress. This also resonates with the theory of identity theory as these characteristics are part of people’s identity, and an attack on the person, will be viewed as an attack on his / her desire to be of a particular identity. The American Psychological Association (2008, quoted in Dzelme, 2008, p.11) supported this reasoning. It explained that the greater psychological harm is due to the fact that hate crime is an attack on two levels; on one’s physical self as well as on one’s own identity and therefore the psychological and emotional damage are two-fold.

88 2.4.2 Communal-effects

On a wider scale, hate crimes have major implications for communities, not merely targeted individuals. Perry (2001) highlighted that the victim is often immaterial and interchangeable for the perpetrator. The victim is merely a representative of a group and the act is intended to be watched and attract the attention of the group the victim belongs to. Hate crimes were defined by

McDevitt (1993) as ‘message crimes’. They aim not only to subordinate the victim, but to send a message to the community that the perpetrator finds the group’s identity offensive and that it needs to be met with violence or intimidation. ‘Any single incident has threatening implications for all members of that group and reminds them that they could be next’ (Craig, 2002, p. 119).

In this respect, they are considered to be a crime like no other.

This resonates deeply with the theory of social identity, which claims that the individual and the group are interlinked. Bloom (1990) argued that when the in- group experiences threat, it also serves to threat the individual identity (Bloom,

1990) and vice versa. Boeckmann et al., (2002) developed the notion that hate crime creates a sense of fear and elicits tensions between the community and society authorities. When offenders abuse a minority group from amid the remainder of society, it can leave grave lasting impact upon that group’s sense of belonging and security (Boeckmann et al., 2002). Its harmful effects infiltrate into the community and are aimed at creating dread and hostility. ‘The realisation that one’s community’ may be targeted because of it’s [sic] immutable or prominent characteristics slowly erodes feelings of safety and security’ (Boeckmann and Turpin-Petrosino, 2002, p.209). As members of the group may fear for their own safety, hate crimes are most likely to create tension

89 and unrest within the community. Hate crime has a collateral impact of challenging ‘deeply held values of inclusion, equity and justice’ (Perry, 2014, p.52) causing separation between communities rather than cohesion (Perry,

2014).

A recent study (Brown et al., 2016) which examined impacts on direct and indirect hate crime victims of the Muslim and LGBT communities in the UK found that simply knowing a victim of hate crime has considerable impacts upon other members of those communities. Although this did not resonate in my findings, this research found that those who had experienced vicarious victimisation felt that hate crimes pose a threat to themselves and their community. The findings of Brown et al., (2016) showed that the feelings of anger, threat and anxiety which the vicarious victims felt were almost on par with those who were directly victimised. Therefore, these findings reveal that one does not actually need to be a direct victim in order to be equally impacted.

These findings, the authors argue, should be used to ‘strengthen the moral and legal arguments for treating hate motivated crimes as a special category of offence and should be used by policy-makers to support the case for a stronger legislative framework for all types of hate crime’ (Brown et al., 2016, p.12).

The sense of fear that hate crimes creates among members of the minority group, have wide implications. Research on fear of crime reflects that there are instances whereby individuals fear crime even though they had not been victims of crime (Prieto and Bishop, 2016a). Prieto and Bishop (2016b) highlight that the majority of the population does not suffer any crime and yet that the fear of crime is more common than crime itself. Fear of crime however, can impact

90 individuals in very similar ways to actual victims. Research highlights that fear of crime can cause paranoia, anxiety, psychological issues (Ruijsbroek et al.,

2015) and reduce the quality of life (Jackson and Gray, 2010).

The notion that hate crimes have wider impacts than ordinary crimes and effects communities have been challenged in recent years. Recent studies have shown that the effect on the community could have the reverse effect. Bell and Perry (2012) interviewed 15 LGBT participants and found that some participants, who were not direct victims, were impacted by hate crime directed against others (feeling a reduction in self-worth and denying their identity).

Other participants however responded conversely by becoming bold and assertive about their identity; thus producing inconclusive findings. Similarly,

Perry (2009) interviewed 300 Native Americans who kept to themselves out of fear of violence. However, some participants described that these threats of violence unified them as a community; pointing to the fact that hate crime victimisation impacted them positively. Among the Muslim community, victims have felt that their identity as a Muslim has been strengthened, despite the attempt to suppress and distort their identities (Brown, 2001). This is something which I encountered in my research as the victimisation of respondents led them to strengthen their Jewish identity.

2.4.3 The role of social support

The impact of victimisation, whilst having the potential to effect individuals, varies. ‘What is consequential for one person may elicit only passing notice from another’ (Ehrlich et al., 1994, p.155). One of the variables which is significant in mediating the effects of hate crime is the social support one is

91 accustomed to. Whilst victimology focuses on research which shows that victims of trauma appear to experience stress reactions similarly (Frieze et al.,

1987), Murphy (1988) claims that victims who have social support in place prior to an incident taking place may shield victims off the negative impacts of a traumatic incident. There is indeed a great deal of research which purports that social support moderates the effects of stress (Boeckmann, 2002).

Studies on social support stress that a sense of community is fundamental to feeling safe because the ‘community gives you a sense of belonging “of being yourself”, it is therefore a key factor in experiences of security and safety’

(Moran and Skeggs, 2004, p.9). Existing studies on social cohesion show that individuals who feel connected to their communities and are more invested in their neighbourhoods have lower fear of crime because they feel safer in their community (Swatt et al., 2013). Feeling safe within the community, for many, extends to feelings of safety within the neighbourhood. These can often be viewed as places of safety. ‘Place-awareness nowadays tends to be relational and comparative’ (Sparks, 2001, p.888). The respondents in my research have denoted ‘here’ (referring to their neighbourhood) as safe, and ‘there’ (referring to anywhere else outside their neighbourhood) as unsafe. The discourse of space and safety will be discussed in section 5.3, subsection 5.

A victim’s response to hate crime also depends on the level of identification the victim has with his community (Boeckmann and Liew, 2002). A victim who is strongly identified with his community will be more assertive in responding to the offence; seeking help and redress, whereas a victim with weak identification

92 with the community will employ negative insight, self-blame and fail to seek remedy (Boeckmann and Liew, 2002).

Leets (2002) studied the difference in the impact of hate speech on Jews and homosexuals. Her findings reported that homosexuals were more likely to seek support than Jews. Jewish victims of hate speech showed more resilience in not needing to seek support, which she ascribed to centuries of persecution and strong community ties. Leets found that homosexuals on the other hand, do not share the same history or established family and community support network (2002).

As the Orthodox Jewish community is a close-knit community, my research explored whether this social cohesion mediated the impact on victims. My findings revealed that the effects of victimisation did not procure long lasting effects among the respondents. I will suggest that, in line with Leets’s study, the reason that participants were not deeply impacted and managed to accept the victimisation was due to their strong community ties and religious background. This will be discussed in chapters 4-6.

2.4.4 Sociological research

There has been an emerging new direction to research the diversity in the experiences of harm. Previous studies of LGBT hate crime victims have typically focused on the psychological effects of victimisation (McDevitt et al.,

2001; Herek et al., 2002). A sociological approach was adopted by Meyer

(2010) exploring the way LGBT individuals viewed the severity of their experiences (Meyer, 2010). The findings showed that middle class white

93 respondents were more likely to perceive their experiences as more severe than low income black respondents. This appeared to be due to the differing expectations between the groups. As most of the low-income black respondents knew others who had experienced anti-queer violence, they believed that they would encounter it as well in the foreseeable future. At times, they downplayed the severity of anti-queer violence because their experiences had turned out better than expected, when comparing themselves with individuals who had experienced a lot of violence. In contrast, middle class white respondents perceived victimisation as rare because they did not know others who had encountered it. Therefore, middle-class white respondents who were victimised, often perceived their violent experiences as severe. This study reflects that those who are most frequently victimised become more resilient than those who did not encounter victimisation.

Similarly, Sweiry (2014) concluded that for Jewish Orthodox participants, hate crime victimisation did not present the same challenges to their sense of personal identity and therefore did not have the same harmful impacts. Sweiry explains that this is due to the fact that certain aspects of their culture already isolates them from mainstream and that there is a dominant belief among them that antisemitism is inevitable (Sweiry, 2014). This is something that I found in my research as well; respondents’ strong Jewish identity acted as a shield against the victimisation. The non-observant participants in Sweiry’s research, in contrast, appeared to articulate more lasting effects from the victimisation.

As they felt more integrated into mainstream society than Orthodox Jews, their victimisation created feelings of isolation and separation (Sweiry and Iganski,

2014, p.31).

94

In starting to conclude this section, Orthodox Jewish communities world-wide are known to have strong community structures in place, with pre-established family and community support network. Being part of the Orthodox Jewish community provides a sense of security, a sense of belonging whereby the individual does not feel isolated. It can give strength in terms of identity and cohesion but can also stain individual members as ‘different’ from others within society.

As this section reveals, hate crime creates complicated webs of impacts affecting both the individuals and the community. The harm does not end the day of victimisation, nor does it end with the people who are directly involved.

It has ripple effects beyond what is expected.

Given the limited qualitative research on antisemitic victimisation, my research is aimed at building on current research. It will examine the way individuals and the community have been impacted and the meaning which they attached to these experiences. In answering research questions 1 and 2, on the categories of incidents which respondents have been subjected to and their perceptions of antisemitism, my analysis will reveal that the respondents were, as a whole, not weighed down by the prevalence of incidents and used their own agency to reconcile and gauge their victimisation.

The next and linked theme is coping mechanisms. Craig (cited in Perry, 2003) stated that in effecting the members of the group, those psychological implications translate into members of the group tailoring their subsequent

95 actions and behaviours. The theme will reveal that these negative impacts lead some victims to modify their behaviour and adopt new strategies of coping.

2.5 Theme 5: Coping Mechanisms

The extent that the victimisation effects victims arises out of a combined synergy between the nature and impact of the victimisation and the victims’ coping mechanisms. Therefore, identifying the various strategies victims adopt, will go some way to explain their overall experiences and perceptions of victimisation.

Individuals adopt various coping mechanisms upon being victimised. Differing social and historical backgrounds have an impact on the way hostility is managed by different individuals. The three-phase Crisis Reaction Model, developed by Bard and Sangrey (1986) describes that reactions to traumatic events spread over three stages. The initial phase takes place instantaneously following the incident whereby victims can display emotional responses which include feelings of vulnerability, anger, denial and disbelief. Victims in the second stage experience emotions such as loss of trust, self-respect and identity as well as mixed emotions ranging from fear to anger, or from self- blame to blaming others. The final stage involves the victims attempting to make behavioural changes and readjusting ideals and approach in order to be more effective. This theme will discuss the final stage of the Crisis Reaction

Model; the various coping strategies which individuals adopt.

There are two main strands in responding to hate crime victimisation. The first is a defeated approach, in which the victim expresses his / her response in

96 terms of withdrawal, becoming isolated or limiting the expression of his / her individual identity. The other main response is accepting the victimisation and continuing to function, with very little change. It ought to be noted at this stage that the strategies adopted below relate not only to direct victims but often to the vicarious victims as well, who feel the need to make certain behavioural changes (Brown et al., 2016). The table below lists the various coping mechanisms adopted and the authors who have further researched this topic.

Coping mechanisms Authors 1. Withdrawal Dzelme (2008), Breakwell (1986) 2. Isolation and moving neighbourhood Breakwell (1981), Weiss (1991) 3. Negotiating identity Perry (2014), Faulkner (2011), Abu-Ras and Suraz (2009) 4. Acceptance Dor-Shav (1990), Leets (2002), Sweiry (2014)

Table 2: Common coping mechanisms and sources

2.5.1 Withdrawal

Dzelme (2008), who conducted a study of hate crime victims, discusses the various strategies individuals adopt in order to limit the risk of further victimisation. These include attempts to construct personal safety measures, limit social activities, withdrawal and emigration. Victims may modify their daily activities, purchase security devices and increase safety precautions for dependents. Victims create ‘personal safety nets’; reduce their social circles, view most relationships with wariness and build a small social network consisting of trustworthy friends and family members (Dzelme, 2008).

Boeckmann et al., (2002) discuss minorities of specific sexual orientation limiting their opportunities to socialise and expressing themselves to those who would be sympathetic to their choices. These individuals feel more comfortable

97 in being part of non-critical, accepting, safe circles. By limiting social circles, they attempt to limit victimisation and hence negativity in their lives.

2.5.2 Isolation

The second coping mechanism is isolation. Whilst isolation is interlinked with withdrawal, isolation is a more excessive approach. Victims not only withdraw from certain circles; they make a choice to remove themselves all together.

Victims isolate themselves in order to stand out as distinct, to reduce the possibility of being rejected and to minimise the possibility of having their self- esteem dented (Breakwell, 1986). Others voiced feelings of solitude and general caution in other relationship contexts (Breakwell, 1986). Some take it even a step further by not only attempting to be less visible but also resorting to moving neighbourhoods (Weiss et al., 1991).

2.5.3 Limiting expression of individual identity

The notion of visibility and being identified as belonging to a particular religious affiliation can be an integral part to people. However, being identified as visibly

Muslim or visibly Jewish for instance can put those individuals at risk. Studies make a link between the visibility of Muslims and experiencing anti-Muslim hate crime (Zempi and Chakraborti, 2014). Studies have examined the way this tension between retaining religious identification and being victimised (as a result of the visibility) has been managed (Perry, 2014; Awan and Zempi, 2015).

Research has shown that a coping mechanism that some individuals adopt is limiting the expression of individual identity by taking steps to become less visibly identifiable.

98 There is extensive research on anti-Muslim victimisation, revealing that many have chosen to become less identifiable. Many Muslim women fearing victimisation have questioned their choice to be covered by the hijab and having been forced to give priority to their own safety over the expression of their religious identity. Veiled Muslim women often try to become less ‘visible’ and as such less vulnerable by removing the veil (Zempi and Chakraborti, 2014;

Awan and Zempi, 2015). Similarly, some adopt western names in order to conceal their Muslim identity or by dressing in western clothes (Awan and

Zempi, 2015). Perry and Alvi (2012) emphasise that this is not a voluntary choice, but the ‘safe’ choice. Taking heed of their personal safety has become of outmost importance (Perry, 2014).

Some Muslim women recognise that there is a certain safety being in a large group and therefore when on their own, have chosen to remain entirely out of the public eye as they have been hesitant to leave the security of their own homes (Abu-Ras and Suarez, 2009). Therefore, it implies that for some Muslim women the choice is between remaining at home and removing the hijab. Both choices are not appealing and leave them restricted in self-expression in some way (Abu-Ras and Suarez, 2009).

It is not only fear of physical safety that leads individuals to consider their expression of identity, fear of rejection and disapproval also leads to individuals to negotiate their identity. A study conducted by Faulkner et al., (2011) of 31

LGBTQ American Jews explored their need to negotiate their identity. Whilst the participants of this study were not victims of hate crime, the process of identity negotiation between being Jewish and a particular sexual orientation,

99 caused dissonance and a need to negotiate the competing and conflicting identities of being Jewish and being part of a sexual minority. These participants had to adopt strategies in order to fend the stigma, prejudice and discrimination.

Some resorted to concealing their identity whilst others went as far as assimilating and pretending to be a Christian and / or a heterosexual. This group of people would be considered by Robert Merton’s anomie theory to be the ‘conformists’ (Merton, 1938).

Given the increasing number of antisemitic incidents, one would also expect to see fewer numbers of Jews openly displaying their Jewish identity in public.

Paradoxically, JPR (2014) highlights that in recent decades there is evidence of a greater number of Jews asserting themselves visually by continuing to wear kippot (skullcaps) and major Jewish events continuing to be publicly displayed.

The report states that antisemitism ‘remains rather a conundrum’ (2014, p.8) as individuals are not shying away from displaying their Jewish identity, despite a rise in incidents. This survey suggests that the rise in antisemitism is not effecting their religious expression.

My research will support these findings and show that no significant coping mechanisms were adopted in managing the victimisation. Respondents on the whole, did not choose withdrawal or isolation, and were in fact unmovable in negotiating their religious identity. The respondents adopted the second main response of acceptance, or what I will term as normalisation.

2.5.4 Acceptance

100 The second, reverse response to victimisation, which is less prevalent, is what

Robert Merton would describe as acceptance (Merton, 1938). A study conducted by Hein et al., (2013) compares LGBT victims with victims of religious, ethnic or race hate crimes. They assert that in this latter group the victims have been raised to deal with their individual beliefs. Hein et al., (2013), claim that these coping skills have either been directly taught or role modelled by an adult within the community. There is an implied understanding, Hein et al. (2013) state, that the community will assist and support a targeted individual.

From a young age, it is common for Jewish (Israeli) youths to experience some form of antagonism, to become skilled in processing it and to be supported by family members (Dor-Shav, 1990). ‘Jews, as a group, are better equipped than homosexuals, to deal with prejudice and discrimination’ (Leets, 2002, p.346).

Delving further as to whether Jewish individuals are in some way more resilient to hate crime, Sweiry (2014) found that many of the visibly Jewish participants articulated that due to the high frequency of being victimised, they have accepted the victimisation as a normal part of their lives. He used the term

‘normalisation’ to refer to respondents accepting the victimisation. However,

Sweiry (2014) questioned whether normalising the incident is a genuine indicator of low level of distress or alternatively whether it is masking a psychological or emotional hurt. He concluded that further research is required to ascertain the true impact.

This section identified the various strategies victims adopt to cope with being victimised and to limit the risk of further victimisation, such as withdrawal from main stream society, isolation, negotiating their appearance publicly or

101 negotiating their identity. It is clear that there is a small body of evidence on the coping mechanisms adopted by the Jewish community in London. In answering research question 3, this study will explore the way victims have managed their responses to their victimisation. My research will reveal that most respondents chose normalisation throughout the process of victimisation and have accepted some level of victimisation in their day-to-day lives. I propose that choosing normalisation was a form of agency of managing the victimisation. This will be discussed in chapters 4-6.

2.6 Theme 6: Concept of Victim

The final and foregoing discussion examines the social process of being identified as a victim of hate crime. It highlights that the notion of victimhood is not an objective one and in order to be labelled a victimised group, this group needs to engender sufficient compassion among the public to achieve ‘victim status’. Being attacked does not automatically lead to recognition of the victim.

Whilst my research reflects the propensity of incidents in the lives of Orthodox

British Jews, it does not follow that they feel recognised as having been victimised.

The Macpherson report (1999) suggests that the subjective views of the victim would suffice in surmounting a case of racism. The Macpherson report (1999) outlines that a racist incident is ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’. Nonetheless, the literature shows that the reality for victims has been very different and that achieving victim status can, at times, be quite challenging.

102 Jenness and Broad focused on ‘the processes of recognition, identification and labelling through which some types of people get social recognition as victims

– often despite their “objective” status in society’ (1999, p.7). The constructionist approach emphasises the way certain phenomenon or social issues get to be defined as so by the public themselves (Goode and Ben-Yehuda, 1994). These social issues are viewed and interpreted by society as ‘oppressive, intolerable or unjust conditions’ (Holstein and Miller, 1994, p.3). Thus, social issues, are projections of collective sentiment rather than the application of objective conditions.

Similarly, just as social issues need to be recognised as a social problem, victims need to go through a process of gaining the status of a victim as well.

Holstein and Miller (1990) analysed the social process through which a person has become known to be a victim; the process of victimisation. The study expressed that there is a ‘social construction’ to victimisation which first outlines the victim’s characteristics and then legitimises the label by assigning these characteristics to the victim and the environment. Once the injured person is labelled as a victim, he / she will be subsequently considered to be deserving of support and protection.

During the summer of 2000, a UK campaign against naming and shaming paedophiles, resulted in many sex offenders being subjected to violence (Perry,

2000). Perpetrators of these assaults were of the view that society would legitimise these attacks (and for taking the law into their own hands) as they are protecting the community. Hamm argued that crime is defined according to what the social norms and consensus (1998) In this case, a paedophile who is

103 attacked, would in effect attract very little compassion, sympathy and support.

It is based on the idea that as he has wronged others, others can wrong him - free of any recourse. In a sense, the paedophile has lost his right to legal protection and his erroneous actions are used to justify the subsequent actions of the perpetrator.

Similarly, following the September 11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York and the Woolwich attack in May 2013 of Lee Rigby, Muslim Londoners were increasingly and frequently stigmatised as posing a threat to security (Githens-

Mazer et al., 2010; Awan, 2013). On the whole, the notion that Muslims have become prime targets of hate crime within London, has been rejected (Githens-

Mazer et al., 2010). It has been difficult for Muslim rights organisations (Muslim

Safety Forum) to persuade the police to treat Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hate crime as a phenomenon in its own right. Often, the report illustrates that the police use purposive terminology of anti-racist crime, rather than using anti-

Muslim offence. Consequently, there is widespread frustration among Muslims, particularly in cases where Muslims have been targeted and yet receive little media attention which goes largely unnoticed (Githens-Mazer et al., 2010). The response to incidents of hate crime against British Muslims (who have been intentionally targeted), has been much more wavering than other minority groups (Githens-Mazer et al., 2010, p.41). It therefore follows that a crime may meet the limited definitional legal requirements of hate crime, but until the group attacked is considered to be a victimised group which generates empathy, that group will not have the capacity to claim victim status.

104 Githens-Mazer et al., (2010) did not explore what it is specifically about the

Muslim community which engenders this lack of protection from society at large.

However, Gidley (2014) discusses the concept of ‘collective responsibility’ which applies to both Jews and Muslims. It is the notion that all Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, or that British Jews are responsible for actions in Israel. Victims who threaten other victim groups do not have a ‘good base for creating the type of general and public sympathy that is associated with the status of being a victim’ (Christie, 1986, p.21). Whilst the notion of ‘collective responsibility’ remains central in people’s perceptions, Muslims will struggle to be viewed as victims of hate crime.

The Snowtown murders case marks some progression in knowledge about the concept of victim. Mason (2007) explains that despite the fact that most of the victims were homosexual and despite the fact that the common theme of ‘hate’ saturated the trial, the murders themselves were never identified as the product of hate crime. Mason (2007) accounts for this by arguing that hate crime is not just a legal, but is also, a moral category. Categorising a group as bona fide victim status is not objective (Jacobs and Potter, 1998; Jenness and Grattett,

2001), rather, it weighs upon the ability of the group to convince the public that they have been unfairly harmed. The group, according to Mason, needs to engender sufficient compassion in order for the public to define an event as hate crime (2007). This group of victims’ characteristics (being homosexual) hindered compassion from the public, despite the torture which they suffered.

The debate over this conceptual basis of hate crime has resulted in the construction of the UK Government Action Plan (HM Government, 2012).

105 Currently, the Government’s Action Plan on hate crime has limited the application of hate crime to the five specified monitored strands of victim identity; ‘disability, gender-identity, race, religion / faith and sexual orientation

(HM Government, 2012, p.6). ‘Victim status’ for victims of race, religion, and ethnicity hate crimes have been least contested and they have been institutionalised into the law. Whereas, hate crime committed for sexual orientation and transgender status purposes have only relatively recently been recognised as victim status (Comstock, 1991) and has seen an unprecedented level of compassion and activity behind this new stage of social construction.

This has created a ‘prejudice hierarchy’ (Harris, 2004) whereby certain groups are internationally recognised and deserving of protection whereas others remain more contentious. Enacted legislation is the stamp of approval which expresses what qualifies as a hate crime, and by extension, which group is officially accorded hate crime victim status by the criminal justice system.

In starting to conclude this section, it is apparent that the symbolic status of victim assignments is not conclusive; not all minority groups ‘earn’ the social recognition of being victims. Recognised victims of hate crime need not only fall into the legal category but also into the moral category, which acts as a

‘symbolic statement’ (Jacob and Potter, 1998, p.65). The assignment of victim status is determined by political activity operated by social actions and the activists who endure them (Jenness and Broad, 1998). Subsequently, when a group falls outside of this protection, it reinforces the social values, the lack of tolerance and respect for disadvantaged groups.

106 Up until recently, as mentioned in the introduction, the precise definition of antisemitism has been open to much debate and this lack of clarity further complicated whether someone was considered to be a victim of antisemitism.

The IHRA definition was adopted in May 2016 by Britain. Once the IHRA definition is implemented across the board, there will be transparency on whether a particular incident is to be regarded as an antisemitic incident and consequently whether the person attacked, is a victim of antisemitism.

For the purposes of this study, I intend to explore this theme further and specifically to examine how pertinent the concept of victimisation is within my research. Findings will show that the concept of victim is largely missing from the data. Section 6.4 will elaborate on this further.

In concluding the literature review chapter, six main themes have emerged, which are related to my research. This chapter described the historical roots of antisemitism and that Jews have been persecuted for centuries. The chapter set out the scale of hate crime and antisemitism and reveals an upward trend of both. It reveals a gap in the literature by showing that the voices of Orthodox

British Jews as to the way they experience their victimisation, has received spare attention in the literature. It then details the greater impact which hate crime has on victims as well as its ripple implications on the community. It shows that victims of hate crime have adopted several significant coping mechanisms to manage the victimisation which at times, modify their quality of life. Finally, this chapter concludes by examining the social process of being identified as a victim and one which merits victim assignment from the public.

107 The next chapter will discuss the methodology adopted in conducting the research.

108 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

As outlined in section 2.3, the antisemitic incidents which the Orthodox Jewish community have been subjected to, as well as their perceptions of antisemitism, have been largely under-researched despite facing higher rates of victimisation.

Against this backdrop, this research aims to enhance the understanding of the nature and impact of the victimisation. This chapter discusses the methodology used in this research and the rationale for selecting my research methods

(semi-structured in-depth interviews as well as focus groups). First, I will describe the arguments for adopting a mix-method approach. I will then describe the sample used, consider the main ethical dimensions involved and the way these individuals were recruited. The chapter will then detail each of the research instruments, the individuals who took part in the research and conclude with the meaning behind having an insider status.

3.1 A qualitative research framework

Peoples’ lived experiences can be researched by surveys, questionnaires or observations. While quantitative research methods can provide valuable statistical context data on hate crime, it tells little about the way individuals’ experience the victimisation and the personal and communal meanings they attach to it. Conducting quantitative research, particularly in circumstances such as this research, where the sample is a ‘hard to reach’ group, would not give due insight to the complex issues behind the victimisation. Quantitative methods provide a snapshot of perceptions and actions, whereas victimisation is a process. As such, a qualitative approach is best served to explore this process.

109 This research is an interpretative qualitative piece of writing. This study has adopted a qualitative approach in order to gain a deeper understanding of people’s feelings and experiences. Hoshmand (1989) notes that when researching the perspectives of participants, qualitative research strategies are particularly suitable as they seek to capture the meaning that participants bring to specific issues into a social context. Adopting qualitative research methods would give depth as to the personal and social meanings of the victimisation and the way victims manage their responses to the victimisation.

In choosing to adopt qualitative research methods to examine hate crime, I drew on the work of Perry (2003) and Hamm (1994). Hamm calls for hate crime research to include ‘qualitative accounts of the subjective reality of each actor in particular instances’ (Hamm 1994, p.26). Perry (2003) supports this notion and claims that hate crime research ‘should be completed by ethnography, life history research, case studies and other methods’ to enable the research to capture the ‘contextual clues’ surrounding hate crime within the context of

‘family, community and neighbourhood’ (Perry, 2003, pp.14-15). Adopting these qualitative methods would serve to complement the quantitative work carried out to date. Whilst being of great interest, the quantitative research methods have yielded high level findings, whereas using qualitative methods will inform understandings of the victimisation within the Orthodox Jewish community.

The main criticism of adopting qualitative techniques is that only a small number of respondents were reached and therefore no hard patterns can be drawn.

Quantitative methods would have been very useful in terms of reaching out to

110 a larger sample and surveying the precise number of antisemitic incidents respondents were subjected to. But it would have disassociated the analysis from its complex context of religion, community, identity and victimisation. A qualitative approach allowed to gain rich data and a deeper understanding of the respondents’ feelings and experiences.

This research employed two methods of data collection; semi-structured in- depth interviews and focus groups. In order to ensure transparency and rigour these research methods were combined (Lambert et al., 2008). Combining these two research methods contributed to the exploration of individual accounts (interviews) within contextual circumstances surrounding the phenomenon (focus groups). Hence, the focus groups were used to complement the interviews so as to gather richer data and expand the scope of the study. In total, 28 interviews and 5 focus groups were carried out. Interviews were conducted with both genders from varying marital and different professional status. Focus groups were conducted with a range of local key stakeholders, voluntary neighbourhood-watch organisations and the police.

Unlike quantitative research on this subject, this methodology has the advantage of using empirical data to examine the perceptions and the types of incidents of victimisation in context.

3.2 The Sample

London is considered one of the world’s most cosmopolitan cities. The 2011

Census revealed that the population of London to be approximately 8.2 million with 36.7% of London’s population being foreign born. As the largest city in the

UK, London is home to one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the

111 world. The diversity is reflected in the variety of religions practiced in the capital:

48.4% Christian, 20.7% no religion, 12.4% Muslim, 5% Hindu, 1.8% Jewish,

1.5% Sikh, 1% Buddhist, 8.5% no response and 0.6% ‘other’ (Census, 2011).

In light of its diverse blend of religions and cultures, London is generally portrayed as the expression of a contemporary, vibrant, multicultural city. Being such a diverse city, London offers the ideal location for this research as the levels of exposure to ‘difference’ is much more acute. A wider range of diversity within a society can also lead to the potential for increase in hate crime. The focus on London was to explore whether the Orthodox Jewish community, living

‘outwardly’ Jewish lives, experience feelings of ‘difference’ despite being one of many minorities. Delving into the victimisation of one of these minorities would shed light as to whether London is authentically the embracing multi- cultural, encompassing cosmopolitan city it portrays itself to be.

Greater London accounts for 65.3% of the total Jewish population in Britain

(Census, 2011). The relatively higher percentage of Jews living in Greater

London increases the exposure of victimisation. Figures of antisemitic incidents reflect that of the 1382 incidents recorded in 2017 within the UK, 733 of those incidents took place in Greater London (CST Antisemitic Incidents Report,

2017).

The Orthodox Jewish population constitute a minority of the total Jewish population in the UK. Of the 271,259 Jews living within the UK, 43,571 are

Orthodox Jews, forming 16% of the overall Jewish population (Census, 2011).

112 However, this community is growing at an extraordinary fast rate, due to its high fertility and low mortality rates (Staetsky and Boyd, 2015, pp. 8, 12).

In choosing my sampling population, I chose to explore two areas where there is high density of Orthodox Jews. The Orthodox Jewish communities tend to form homogenous residential clusters. The two main geographical areas where these communities reside in London are in Barnet (which includes Golders

Green and Hendon) and Stamford Hill (Hackney and Haringey). According to the 2011 census, 12,780 Jews reside in Barnet (North West London) and

16,423 Jews reside in Stamford Hill. Due to the dense population of strictly

Orthodox Jews within these two geographical areas, I deemed these two neighbourhoods to be the ideal neighbourhoods for this phenomenon to be researched.

In framing the lines of enquiry of the research, prominence was given to eliciting data from a stratified sample so as to be able to obtain diverse and rich data in answer to my research questions. For the interviews, I recruited a sample which included participants aged 18-75, both men and women, married and single and targeted those from differing social and professional classes (the methods used to recruit are discussed below).

Other than these factors and in order to explore this phenomenon fully, it was also important for me to obtain an overview of the incidents which respondents have been subjected to as well as their perceptions of antisemitism, not merely from those who had been personally victimised but also from those who had not been directly victimised. As part of my stratification and as my aim was to

113 obtain an overview of the perceptions of the Orthodox Jewish community, to explore whether those not directly victimised felt anxious or apprehensive about living an outwardly Jewish life in London and to examine whether their identities as Jews had been affected.

The large majority of respondents were born and bred as British Jews. Of the

28 participants, 16 reside in Barnet and 12 participants in Stamford Hill. Despite slight differences in dress between these two neighbourhoods, all participants were visibly Jewish. Males would all cover their head, be it with a kapple (a yarmulke) or a black hat and they would all wear tsitsit (an undergarment) with fringed tassels which would either be visible or tucked in. Women would have their hair covered; either with a sheitel (wig) or some scarf and would be dressed conservatively.

Regarding the sampling of focus group participants, the Orthodox Jewish community is relatively small and it would be uncommon for Jews in certain professional spheres not to know one another. The members of each focus group not only shared certain characteristics, such as being Orthodox and male, but also knew each other. Flick (2006) suggests that employing ‘pre- existing members’ ensures that the discussions are more ‘natural’, which was the initial purpose in conducting focus groups.

Within the focus group sample used, other than one female police officer, all participants were male. The reason being that Orthodox females have not occupied roles within these professional spheres to date. Therefore, findings

114 obtained from the focus groups will reflect rather male domineering points of view.

A potential limitation is that employing natural groups leads to the use of certain phrases and terminology and certain presumptions being made, assuming that the researcher is able to discern the information (Curtis and Curtis, 2011). In this instance, as a member of the Orthodox Jewish community, the nuances used were understood.

Having gathered my data from respondents in interviews, some data came to light presenting antisemitism as being enshrined in the Torah, which I wished to seek clarification about. I therefore decided to interview a renowned Rabbi who had background expertise in Jewish philosophy and was well recognised within the Orthodox Jewish community. My intentions were for his response to illuminate whether, in his view, the opinion of the other respondents about

Torah sources, were accurate. I did not include him as one of my interview participants.

3.3 Research ethics

The first factor to consider in relation to the methodology is its ethical dimensions. The guidelines set out within the Statement of Ethical Practice of the British Sociological Association assisted me in forming my interview schedule. All participants provided informed consent and were told that even though the interview was being recorded, their confidentiality and anonymity would be safeguarded throughout the research process. I informed them from the outset that their real name would not be referred to. In order to alleviate any

115 pressure they may have felt, I informed them that there are no right or wrong answers; that I was merely seeking their perceptions. Prior to each interview commencing, the participants were informed of the purpose of the research, my role and that I intend for the findings to be disseminated. Each interviewee was given an information form as well as a consent form which detailed the purpose of my research and that they could withdraw from the interview at any time and the adherence to confidentiality and anonymity was emphasised. All members of the focus group were provided with identical material (refer to Appendix 1-3 for a copy of the information and consent form). By setting out the guidelines for respondents with specific information, ethics and integrity was maintained.

In order to ensure that each respondent would feel at ease, each interview was conducted at their chosen location. Interviews were conducted at the respondents’ home, office or in community centres where there was access to a quiet room. I sensed that respondents felt uninhibited and comfortable, as they were interviewed in places of their choice, with which they had familiarity.

Moreover, although I collated material from organisations which provide support prior to the interviews commencing, none of the participants seemed emotionally distressed whilst detailing the incidents which they were subjected to and it did not reach the stage that it was necessary for me to provide them with contact details for appropriate support organisations.

3.4 Access to respondents

Having prepared the interview and focus group schedules with core questions to draw out the types of incidents they were subjected to and the perceptions

116 of participants on antisemitism, the next step was to seek and select individuals who would be prepared to participate in this research.

Research shows (Action Against Hate: the UK Government’s Plan for Tackling

Hate Crime, 2016) that victims of antisemitism, particularly the Orthodox Jewish community, neither report incidents of abuse nor seek professional support in response to the victimisation. Therefore, contacting support agencies would have proved futile. I therefore recruited participants through a variety of strategies including local advertising, personal networks and organisational contacts. As an insider, the task of finding participants was a fairly easy one.

To reach individual participants, I first placed an advertisement on

‘EverywhereK’, the largest online Jewish website, which reaches out to several thousand Jews, who are predominantly based in Barnet. I received several responses to that advertisement which was followed by obtaining informed consent and conducting interviews.

The second group of interviewees were accrued through referrals from other individuals who had already taken part in the study (snowballing). In fact, the majority of participants were accessed through this form of sampling. Even as an insider, there may be respondents who are hard to reach. Snowballing is an advantageous method in being able to gain access to people that the researcher might not have otherwise reached. Since the researcher is relying on respondents who provide contact information of other respondents, snowball sampling is prone to selection bias and should not be considered to be representative of the population being studied (Sedgwick, 2013). Some critics

117 feel that as the particular respondents are handpicked, snowballing may possibly produce quite similar data with similar experiences (Heckathorn,

1997). Despite these criticisms, snowballing was nonetheless used as a research method due to the closed nature of this community.

Purposive sampling was subsequently used. In order to ensure that there was a wide spectrum of participants, in terms of key characteristics such as gender, martial and educational status, I used purposive sampling, which ensured that certain types of individuals were included in the study. For instance, at the beginning of the recruitment process, the majority of respondents were male and either in the early 20s or late 50s. It was important for me to reach out to females and those in their 30s and 40s.

When gaining access to respondents I was conscious of the gender segregation within the community, with Orthodox males and females tending not to socialise with one another. Gender segregation within the Orthodox

Jewish community is apparent from primary schools, with separate classes and possibly schools for each gender and permeates through to adulthood. Prayer services in the synagogue are separate, there is separate seating in marriage ceremonies and segregation is encouraged during leisure activities, such as separate swimming times. When obtaining access, one Orthodox man declined to be interviewed by me. The gatekeeper felt it was probably due to the fact that he was uncomfortable to be in close proximity to a woman from the same religious community. However, the Orthodox male respondents who did agree to be interviewed, were open to be interviewed by a female researcher and the usual gender separation did not impact the quality of the data. As it is not

118 common for an Orthodox Jewish man and woman to sit alone in a room together

(unless for a specific purpose), the respondents must have put gender segregation aside as they appreciated the importance of conducting this research.

Overall, obtaining access to participants of the focus group was a fairly smooth process as well. As a member of the Jewish community in Barnet, I managed to use my personal and professional connections to secure access with Rabbis,

Jewish councillors and Shomrim NW with ease. I received access to the organisation by contacting one individual from each organisation who secured me access to other participants within the organisation.

Using the same selection criteria for reaching out to respondents of different gender, marital and professional status, accessing members in Stamford Hill was less straightforward. In order to gain access to Shomrim SH as well as to

Jewish police officers, snowball sampling was used again. This type of sampling is predominantly suitable where the population of interest is ‘hidden’ or ‘hard to reach’ (Patton, 1987) and specific ‘gatekeepers’ can enable access to particular individuals. I approached a ‘gatekeeper’, a man from Stamford Hill

(whom I know in a professional capacity), who made the introduction between the respondents and me. The impact of knowing this gatekeeper was the ability to eventually access a broad spectrum of individuals.

The potential criticism of gatekeepers is that they may seem to appear powerful and facilitative but they may also be pursuing their own agenda-setting

(Hammond, 1986). Gatekeepers control access to respondents and may

119 influence the research in a number of ways. They may limit access to particular data or respondents. By limiting access and I pursuing their own agenda, they may restrict the scope of the analysis (McAreavey and Das, 2013).

Furthermore, the location of researchers limits their own access and the data may be confined to respondents with similar experiences and similar data.

However, on the whole I am satisfied that I accessed the widest range of respondents possible, including those who have been severely victimised, which supported the research process.

Reaching out to focus group participants had some challenges though. Finding a mutually convenient time for a number of individuals was bound to be more challenging. All the members of the focus group whom I managed to reach were busy people who were juggling work, Torah learning and often large families.

To a certain extent, recruiting a large number of participants for the focus groups proved challenging for various reasons including scarcity of Orthodox

Jewish people in a particular field and others having other last minute commitments. Acknowledging their already tight schedule, I did not feel it was right to postpone the focus group in the hope that more members would turn up on a subsequent occasion. However, the impact of having small focus groups is that the small number of participants made the focus group manageable.

3.5 Research Design

Both research methods used need to be discussed in more details. I will discuss each in turn. As a reminder, the interviews and focus groups were aimed to answer the following research questions:

120 1. What antisemitic incidents are Orthodox Jews in London subjected to and what is their immediate response to those incidents?

2. What are the perceptions held by Orthodox Jews in London of antisemitism?

3. What coping mechanisms are currently being adopted in response to the rise in antisemitism by the Orthodox Jewish community? And

4. To what extent did Orthodox Jews report antisemitic incidents and what were their perceptions about the agencies which respond to antisemitism?

3.5a Semi-structured, in-depth interviews:

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 Orthodox Jews over a period of 6 months (interviews took place between the middle of July

2016 and the middle of January 2017). Interviewing is a particularly effective method of collection data, particularly in understanding the perceptions of participants to a certain phenomenon (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998). The objective of conducting the interviews was to answer all research questions and therefore to capture the personal narratives of individuals, noting the way participants interpreted their individual victimisation, the coping mechanisms adopted and sought to explore their perceptions about the agencies which respond to antisemitism. The interviews were aimed to be a flexible medium which would

‘give voices’ to an under-researched area.

Each interview lasted between 45 – 90 minutes. Interviews were conducted until a point of saturation was reached and the themes raised in interviews began to show similarities with each other (Bryman, 2008). Five interviews took place in a community centre, 5 were carried out in their offices, 3 over the telephone and 15 in their homes. With the consent of the respondents, the

121 interviews were audio-taped (including the telephone interviews) and fully

transcribed.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using telephone interviews versus

face-to-face interviews as data collection. A dominant disadvantage of using

telephone interviews is that less information is forthcoming (Rahman, 2015).

The main benefit of interviewing via telephones, according to Musselwhite et.

al., (2007) is that telephone interviews may lessen the possibility of any bias,

as the researcher is not physically sharing a room with the respondents and is

unable to influence the answers. In collecting my data, only three respondents

had requested for the interviews to be conducted over the telephone (as they

had limited time). However, certainly in two of the three interviews, the

respondents provided me with much shorter answers than the face-to-face

respondents and I had to ensure that I asked ample questions in order to collect

sufficient data.

In order to ensure the anonymity of all my participants, I have chosen to refer

to them using the following code R1 (respondent 1), R2 (respondent 2) and so

on (for a description of each participant see Table 3 below). Table 1 presents

the main categories which respondents fall into. Within the ‘unemployed’

category, participants were either seeking employment, in full time education or

retired.

Male Female Married Single Employed Unemployed Barnet 8 8 10 6 9 7 Stamford 6 6 10 2 10 2 Hill

Table 3: Interview respondents’ characteristics

122 The table below displays the list of interview participants with some elementary

information about each of them. For detailed vignettes of participants, refer to

Appendix 7. The analysis will reflect that, at times, there was a common thread

in the voices of those from specific categories. For instance, incidents of direct

physical abuse appeared to more evident by younger interviewees who were

male.

Age Gender Area Education Profession R1 27 F Barnet Secondary Education Studying to become a counsellor R2 69 M Barnet Primary Education Retired Jeweller R3 22 M SH Secondary education Unemployed R4 57 M SH Primary Education Grocery shop owner R5 22 M Barnet Secondary education Unemployed R6 68 M Barnet Graduate Retired architect R7 53 M Barnet Graduate Composer and musician R8 38 M Barnet Yeshiva Background Rabbi R9 21 M Barnet Graduate University student R10 65 F Barnet Graduate University Professor R11 41 F Barnet Graduate Business consultant in city firm R12 39 M Barnet Graduate Software writer R13 58 F Barnet Graduate Partner in city law firm R14 63 F Barnet Secondary Education Home maker R15 75 F SH Secondary Education Chief executive housing association Deputy manager of women's mental health R16 30 F SH Graduate hospital R17 24 F Barnet Secondary Education Manages a retail business R18 20 F SH Secondary Education Administrator R19 34 M SH Primary Education Building contractor R20 37 M SH Primary Education Studies Jewish law and philosophy R21 43 F Barnet Graduate COO of an asset management company R22 25 F Barnet Graduate Graphic designer R23 25 F SH Secondary Education Jewish studies teacher R24 30 M SH Yeshiva Background Property developer R25 28 F SH Secondary Education Administrator R26 46 M SH Yeshiva Background Headmaster of secondary boys school R27 42 F SH Secondary Education Head of early years in primary school R28 37 M SH Yeshiva Background Property consultant

Table 4: Interview respondents’ profiles

3.5b Focus Groups

123 Focus groups were used as a complementary method of data collection to the interviews. Focus groups are a useful technique is gaining comprehensive and open discussion about a social phenomenon, in ways that are inaccessible to research methods that take the individual as their basic unit of analysis. The interactions between respondents can generate different data than would have emerged in a one-on-one interview and generated conversation on their perception of antisemitism. People often listen to others’ opinions and understandings in forming their own. The focus groups allowed for open discussions about similar or differing perceptions of antisemitism among the community. Participants often framed their answers in response to others, either agreeing or disagreeing with different views.

A further consideration was the size of the focus group. It is said that between

6 and 10 members is the ideal number for participants of focus groups. In cases where the research topic is controversial or complex, smaller focus groups are recommended (Maxfield and Babby, 2009). For the purposes of my research, between 3 and 8 members were used.

Focus groups were used in order to draw out the opinions of a wide group of individuals within the Jewish population. I conducted five focus groups, each group representing part of the establishment:

i) Orthodox Rabbis (who are considered to be the first port of call for

Orthodox Jewry in terms of seeking advice on personal, professional

matters and sharing any concerns they may have),

124 ii) Shomrim North West – Jewish neighbourhood patrol group (which

defends and represents the NW Jewish community in matters of

antisemitism among other things),

iii) Shomrim Stamford Hill – Jewish neighbourhood patrol group (which

defends and represents the Jewish community in Hackney and

Haringey in matters of antisemitism among other things),

iv) Jewish Police Officers (identifying the way the social system responds

to antisemitism),

v) Jewish Councillors from Barnet (who would be in communication with

Jewish Barnet residents, the police and on a governmental level, if an

antisemitic attack arose.

The focus groups were aimed at identifying perceptions of antisemitism within the community, the types of incidents that members of the community have endured, the coping mechanisms adopted by those victimised and the way the social system responds to antisemitic incidents. It aimed to answer all research questions. These five focus groups were conducted between August 2016 and

November 2016 (a period of 4 months). Each focus group lasted between an hour and an hour and a half and were conducted in the charity or organisations’ place of work. Conducting the focus group in their offices allowed respondents to feel comfortable and secure, as they were being interviewed in places that they were familiar with.

125 The data gathered from the focus groups has a different status to data gathered

in interviews, in that the respondents of focus group have a more official status.

The focus group participants are mostly powerful people who are

representatives of the community. They have a less personalised approach and

power to act. They have vision and a sense of agency. It is useful to hear from

the voices of those who lead the community as it provides an additional

perspective.

The table below presents the focus group participants with some elementary

information about each of them:

Employment Role FG1 RK Rabbi Director of a Jewish Outreach Organisation FG2 RT Rabbi Jewish lecturer FG3 RZ Rabbi Senior speaker Jewish Outreach Organisation FG4 RM Rabbi Campus Rabbi for Jewish Outreach Organisation FG5 RL Rabbi Rabbi of a particular ward Head of Jewish studies in Jewish secondary FG6 RH Rabbi school FG7 RA Rabbi Head of Jewish studies in Jewish primary school FG8 I Police Female - Jewish Liaison Officer FG9 M Police Chief Inspector FG10 T Police Chief Inspector FG11 Z Councillor Barnet Councillor FG12 C Councillor Barnet Councillor FG13 R Councillor Barnet Councillor FG14 G Shomrim NW Volunteer of Shomrim FG15 U Shomrim NW Volunteer of Shomrim FG16 Y Shomrim NW Volunteer of Shomrim FG17 RG Shomrim SH Volunteer of Shomrim FG18 MrB Shomrim SH Volunteer of Shomrim FG19 MrS Shomrim SH Volunteer of Shomrim FG20 MrH Shomrim SH Volunteer of Shomrim FG21 MrSt Shomrim SH Volunteer of Shomrim

Table 5: Focus Group Participants’ Profiles

3.6 Gathering and analysing data

The interview and focus group schedules included mainly open questions with

the aim of enriching the data whilst ensuring transparency and rigour. This was

126 followed with select closed questions, both to demonstrate understanding and to clarify responses if necessary (refer to interview schedule forms Appendix

4).

The main open questions which were asked of interview participants were:

1. Have you, or anyone else you know, been subjected to antisemitic

hostility? How did this incident effect you immediately after the incident?

2. Generally, what are your views on antisemitism in London?

Has antisemitism changed over the years?

Do you feel secure living as a Jew in Britain?

3. Looking back at the incident, how did it effect you in the long-term?

What helped you cope with the incident?

4. What are the reasons behind you choosing to or not to report the

incident? What influenced your preferences as to which organisation you

chose to report to?

The main questions which were asked of focus group participants were:

1. How has the North London Orthodox Jewish community been effected

by antisemitism?

2. What are your views about antisemitism in the UK?

3. What mechanisms has the Orthodox Jewish community adopted in

coping with antisemitism? Does antisemitism effect the way people

express their Jewishness in public?

4. What are your views about the organisations which monitor

antisemitism?

127 With the permission of each participant, the discussions were recorded, transcribed and subsequently analysed against emerging themes from the interviews. The process of transcribing each interview and focus groups, was an integral part of the analysis process, as it allowed me to increase familiarity with the data whilst allowing for initial themes to emerge.

Qualitative thematic analysis (developed by Braun and Clark, 2006), was used in analysing my data. I applied this form of analysis in order to identify implicit and explicit ideas within the data. Braun and Clark (2006) emphasise that in applying this form of analysis, coding is the primary process for developing themes. In applying this form of analysis, I developed a set of codes that address the research questions and took into account any original themes that emerged from the data collection. In order to ensure rigour and transparency, a qualitative analysis software package, Nvivo, was used as a data management system. It allowed me to systematically code the data under four broad themes (and 30 sub-themes), each reflecting the four research questions. By way of example, a broad theme of ‘experiences’ was coded. Its subthemes included the types of direct incidents which respondents endured, the circumstances of the incident, the immediate response of the respondent and whether the incident engendered support from those witnessing the incident.

A coding scheme emerged both deductively and inductively. Various themes were deductive, as they were based on my understanding of the topic, my research questions and the literature review in existence, whereas other themes were inductive as they emerged, unpredictably, from the interviews

128 themselves. The analysis was exploratory, addressing issues that were not obvious at the beginning of the project.

The collation and analysis of the data was divided into two parts. The first was hearing the voices of the participants and not tampering with what they had actually said. The second part was to interpret what they had meant. The measures I had taken to ensure that their voices were not tampered with, was to extract verbatim quotes from interviews as well as focus groups to ensure transparency. Quotes from interviews provide readers with first hand access to the way participants made sense of victimisation. Hearing the voices of those victimised, or those who could potentially be subjected to victimisation, provides an authentic way of comprehending a phenomenon. The second part of analysing the data involved me interpreting the data. Often what they said could not be taken at face value, and therefore using my knowledge of the literature and speaking to several people in the field, allowed me to interpret the data in the broader context. By way of example, respondents had chosen not to use the words victims and victimisation in the interviews. As a researcher, I needed to make sense of that. I needed to interpret whether this omission was because they were not victims or whether considering themselves as victims would unleash reactions which they did not wish to face (this will be discussed in section 6.4).

3.7 Being an insider

As the final factor, it is important to clarify my position as a researcher. As a researcher, I entered the field with some prior insight of the research but I remained open to new knowledge throughout the study. As an Orthodox Jewish

129 woman myself, I needed to reflect on my position in the fieldwork. Having been raised in South East Asia, but in a fairly traditional Jewish home, I chose an

Orthodox lifestyle in my early twenties. To this day, I have my feet immersed in both worlds; as a member of the Orthodox Jewish community and an employee and researcher; as well as with friends within the non-Jewish world. This dual perspective provides a platform from where I analysed and interpreted my data.

I was personally coming from a place that I had my own views of antisemitism, but no personal engagement of antisemitism directed at me nor against those who are dear to me. Prior to the collection of this data, I was only familiar with very few antisemitic incidents directed at a couple of individuals whom I did not know personally, only by name. I therefore believe that whilst I share affiliation with the social group being studied, I was not too close to the subject and I wanted to do justice for my sample. I felt that I could maintain a degree of openness required to collect data that might have tested my preconceived beliefs.

However, these preconceived beliefs (that I was not too close to the subject) were tested on a couple of instances. During one interview, the respondent described being a victim of physical abuse but said that he was not effected by the attack. I found it hard to reconcile the severity of his attack with his emotional response. On another occasion, an older respondent, seemed to overstate the comfort levels of living in Britain as an Orthodox Jew. I found it challenging to reconcile the overemphasis of security with him being the son of Holocaust survivors, as I assumed, he would be more cynical in his perceptions of antisemitism. In order to maintain transparency and rigour, I would resort to this

130 two-stage process I described in section 3.6, of first conveying the authentic voice of the respondents by repeating what respondents had actually said and second, of stating my interpretation of the data.

There has been much controversy as to the relationship between the researcher and the researched and distinctions made about the strengths and limitations of being an ‘insider’ versus and ‘outsider’ (Bonner and Tolhurst,

2002). Being an insider has allowed me to gain access to this hard-to-reach, insular community. A researcher who is not an insider would not have been able to gain access to this insular community. This marginalised community was only prepared to share their experiences with me as they felt a sense of trust. For example, during the interviews, some respondents shared with me personal detail about their life, unconnected to the research.

Other than the ability to gain access to this hard-to-reach group, Bonner and

Tolhurst (2002) identify the advantages of being an insider to the research process: ‘having a greater understanding of the culture being studied; not altering the flow of social interaction unnaturally; and having an established intimacy which promotes both the telling and the judging of truth’ (2002, pp.8-

9). Having collected my data, I feel that those three points were to my advantage and consequently benefited the research. Being an insider personally benefited the research process as there was an assumption of a shared culture and similar way of life and therefore an immediate level of trust and intimacy. This in turn, eased our transition into the more sensitive and enabled rich data collection. According to Smyth and Holian (2008), in their work on research within organisations, having a shared culture and a similar

131 way of life also impacts the interview process as there is greater knowledge about the culture which an outsider would take a longer time to acquire.

The danger of them assuming that I shared their knowledge and experiences is that they may overlook relevant information or not elaborate sufficiently.

When this took place, I followed with select closed questions, both to demonstrate understanding and to clarify their responses.

There are other known drawbacks to being an insider. One of the drawbacks of being an insider-researcher is that the researcher may make various assumptions based on his or her prior knowledge of the topic, issue or group which may be inaccurate, not maintaining an objective, unbiased stance of the data (DeLyser, 2001).

As a researcher, it was important for me to remain aware of the possible pitfalls that may be encountered as an insider. In order to safeguard transparency and rigour, I would, at times, follow up with closed questions to ensure I convey their authentic voice, not mine. It was imperative for me to take preventative measures to ensure I remained open to the ‘true meaning’, or as Miles and

Huberman (1994) referred to as the ‘authenticity’ of the findings, being cognisant to what was actually being verbalised, rather than what I anticipated would be expressed. Such preventative measures included keeping a journal as an audit trail (which I was able to access when I was unclear as to events at any given stage), using Nvivo to record qualitative findings in an accurate and comprehensive manner and incorporating into the interviews and focus groups an opportunity for me to check the interpretations with the respondents, so that

132 the research will remain transparent and rigorous. The dangers of being an insider were also mitigated by the fact that I had a range of respondents and a theoretical lens to interpret, making me less susceptible to being motivated into a relation of kinship with my respondents.

I concur with Lopez and Willis (2004) who claim that the researcher is regarded as an inseparable part of the research process and the researcher needs to be integrated into the research analysis. Therefore, as a researcher, my perceptions and beliefs were an important aspect, contributing to the interpretation of the participant’s personal world.

3.8 Conclusion

The methodology used in this study has been documented in this chapter. The rationale for using the two sources of data collection, namely in-depth semi structured interviews as well as focus groups, were outlined. It detailed the sampling process which was used and the progression of obtaining access to participants and members of focus groups. This chapter discussed the way data was analysed and also looked at the role of the researcher as an insider. In the context of the present study it was argued that being an insider can benefit the research process as there was a greater understanding of the culture and an established intimacy which maintained the flow of interaction. I can now turn to explore the types of antisemitic incidents which respondents were subjected to and their immediate response to the victimisation.

133 ANALYSIS The analysis chapters are about to commence. For the sake of simplicity, and to clarify for the reader the way I went about my analysis, see the diagram below. It sets out the four research questions, an explanation of each of them and the questions which were asked in interview in order to capture the data.

Question Explanation Questions asked to capture the data Research What antisemitic incidents are a. Types of incidents respondents a. Have you, or anyone else you Question 1 Orthodox Jews in London were subjected to, and know, been subjected to antisemitic subjected to and what is their b. How did they feel or react hostility? immediate response to those immediately after the incident? b. how did this incident effect you incidents? immediately after the incident? Research What are the perceptions held by a. Their views on the scale and a. Generally, what are your views on Question 2 Orthodox Jews in London of significance of antisemitism in antisemitism in London? antisemitism? London b. Has antisemitism changed over the b. The underlying factors which years? shape these views. c. Do you feel secure living as a Jew in Britain? Research What coping mechanisms are In light of the incidents they had a. Looking back at the incident, how Question 3 currently being adopted in been subjected to, what did it effect you in the long-term? response to the rise in precautionary measures they had b. What helped you cope with the antisemitism by the Orthodox adopted in order to manage future incident? Jewish community? victimisation. Research To what extent did Orthodox Do respondents feel that the primary a. What are the reasons behind you Question 4 Jews report antisemitic incidents organisations which are in place, choosing to/ not to report the incident? and what were their perceptions which respond to antisemitism, are b. What influenced your preferences about the agencies which adequate? Does that influence who as to which organisation you chose to respond to antisemitism? they chose to report to? report to?

Table 6: Research questions explained

134 CHAPTER 4: TYPES OF ANTISEMITIC INCIDENTS and IMMEDIATE

RESPONSE

4.1 Introduction

In the course of writing up my analysis chapters, I will address each research question in turn. I will start by addressing the first of the research questions of

‘what antisemitic incidents are Orthodox Jews in London subjected to and what is their immediate response to those incidents?’ I analysed my data using semi- structured interviews as well as focus groups.

While it can be argued that rather than first analysing the types of incidents respondents are subjected to, it is sensible to start by examining the

‘perceptions’ (research question 2) which Orthodox Jews carry, so as to get a wider picture of their sense of security living as British Jews, their range of perceptions may be effected by the antisemitic incidents which they had personally encountered. For instance, a person’s sense of security may be vastly shaped as a result of being a victim of antisemitism. Goffman (1971, p.248) observes that ‘an individual’s acquired experience... [is] a factor in determining what he would sense as alarming’; a contention supported by Innes

(2004, p.131). It follows that the topics of perceptions and subjected incidents are heavily interlinked and cannot be read in isolation.

I decided to start by exploring the types of antisemitic incidents respondents were subjected to, because these in turn, could potentially shape their perceptions of antisemitism. This chapter will first examine the types of antisemitic incidents which some of the respondents were directly subjected to, highlighting that these incidents varied in extent and manifested themselves in

135 different ways. Discussion will show certain patterns in the types of victimisation which were experienced, including the frequency and severity of some incidents over others. The second part of this chapter will consider the immediate response to these incidents; it will explore the way respondents felt or reacted immediately after the incidents. It will show that the extent of the impact was often not commensurate with the severity of the incident.

Incidents of antisemitism have been recorded by both the police and the CST.

These statistics have been particularly useful in assessing overall trends of antisemitic events. This thesis is not aimed at quantifying the rate of antisemitic incidents that are occurring in Britain. Nevertheless, the expected benefit of this analysis is to highlight the types of antisemitic incidents Orthodox Jews in

London are subjected to and to shed light as to the meaning attached to the victimisation.

Definitions

During interviews, I asked respondents open-ended questions about the types of antisemitic incidents they had been subjected to. I left it down to the respondents to retell what they might have considered to be an antisemitic incident or hostility. However, as the interviews progressed, I noticed that ‘being subjected to an antisemitic incident’ is not straightforward. For instance, in cases where a Jewish person is physically attacked and the perpetrator was shouting verbal abuse about the victim’s Jewish identity during the attack, that would be a clear case of that person being ‘subjected to an antisemitic incident’.

It is less straightforward in cases where the offensive act is not specifically directed at the individual. For example, if a Jewish person walks down the street

136 and notices a flag of Hamas, a question could arise whether the Jewish person is ‘subjected to an antisemitic incident’ as it was not personally directed at that individual. I will argue that the latter example would nonetheless constitute an antisemitic incident if the Hamas flag is regarded as a symbolic object by the respondent, so that the respondent is negatively affected by it (the role of symbolic objects will be discussed in section 4.4). It is therefore the belief of the victim which is material, rather than whether this is an offence which would withstand the legal threshold.

The data revealed that antisemitic incidents were divided into two separate categories, direct (or personal) incidents and incidents which were experienced vicariously (vicarious victimisation). For the purposes of this analysis, the word

‘direct’ was used to describe an incident which was witnessed and experienced by the participant personally. It is their individual experience and their personal encounter with victimisation (Brown, 2016), whereas vicarious victimisation was used as having knowledge of others who have been victimised (Brown, 2016) or an incident which did not set out to be personally directed at that individual, but which was nonetheless offensive.

4.2 Categories of Antisemitism

On the whole, participants were cognisant that the Jewish community lives in these two safe neighbourhoods in London. Jewish people, particularly the

Orthodox Jewish community continue to live their daily lives as practicing, visible Jews. They are free to live and express themselves as Orthodox Jews in London. This was reflected within my sample, which showed that by and large, participants are grateful to be able to live as British Jews in London.

137 Therefore, the antisemitic incidents which I am about to detail, have to be seen within that overall context.

Of the 28 interviews conducted, 22 participants were personally subjected to some form of antisemitic incidents. Those 22 participants described either having been directly the targets of antisemitic incidents or vicariously victimised.

Of the 22 participants who were subjected to antisemitic incidents, 15 participants were directly victimised, 12 participants were vicariously victimised and 6 participants experienced both. Therefore, of the 28 interviews, nearly

80% of the participants were subjected to some form of antisemitism, be it directly or vicariously, and just over 20% did not report any incidents of antisemitism.

Despite the conformity in dress and the similar religious and lifestyle choices, the experiences of antisemitism among the sample varied tremendously from the weighty to the insignificant, in levels of criminality. The range of incidents among this sample ranged from ‘low level’ incidents, namely verbal abuse or discrimination, to the most extreme offending, being attempted murder.

At data coding and analysis stage, five core categories of direct antisemitic incidents were identified, and presented in the diagram 1. First was the physical abuse and assault encountered by a number of participants. Secondly and to a great extent, the high prevalence of verbal abuse and hostility which the interviewees had endured. Thirdly, incidents of discrimination on campus, in the work context and in other scenarios. Fourthly, and to a far more limited extent, being subjected to prejudicial attitudes and stereotypes. The final and fifth

138 category of antisemitism was being exposed to antisemitic material. These categories of antisemitism replicate the types of incidents established in the findings of Sweiry (2014). However, because the participants herein are homogenous in their visibility as Jews, the extent of the criminality experienced is weightier. For instance, the respondents within Sweiry’s research were not subjected to physical abuse, which is the most severe category of antisemitic incidents.

Philips (2003) examined studies which have shown the methodological and conceptual difficulties with predicting the ‘real’ extent of violent racism (Bowling

1993, 1999: 150-168; Hesse et al., 1992). So too, the measuring of antisemitism, is filled with difficulty. The frequency of the incidents, their impacts, the level of seriousness of each incident, all provide part of the context of antisemitism, but also serve to show that assessing the exact extent of antisemitism cannot realistically be measured.

It follows that the categories of victimisation have been conceptualised into a

‘continuum of violence’ theme. This theme had originated from the work of Kelly

(1988), which focused on female victims of sexual and physical violence and discussed that victimisation is in fact a process, connecting ‘everyday’ abuse with extreme acts of violence (Kelly, 1987; Stanko, 1988). Similarly, conceiving of antisemitism as a process allows connections to be made between verbal abuse on the one end of the spectrum and attempted murder on the other. This context helps to explain the types of antisemitic incidents referred to herein.

139 During interviews, participants were asked whether they were subjected to any form of antisemitic hostility. If so, they were asked to describe individual incidents as best as possible, including the circumstances of the offence, the location, the language used and whether there were witnesses in the vicinity.

The types of incidents recounted are displayed in the diagram below.

140

141 I will now turn to explore the five discernible categories of the direct antisemitic incidents in turn. In so doing, it will be necessary to first break the process of victimisation so as to make sense of it and then put it back together again – in order to view it holistically.

Category 1: Physical attacks and assaults

Starting with the most severe, incidents of personal physical violence, while less common, were recounted. Of the 28 participants, 6 participants were subjected to physical violence or assault, a couple of which were of the most disturbing nature. Of those 6 participants, and on the most extreme end of the scale, one respondent (R20) reported an incident which resulted in life threatening injuries.

R20, who was attacked by an Algerian Muslim man, was sitting at the top deck of a double bus, when he felt someone approach him from behind. ‘First I thought it was a friend who was playing a practical joke, but then I saw a knife actually around my neck and it was the first stab wound’. At one point he was lying on the floor saying Shema Yisrael (a prayer recited by Jews as their final words), pleading G-d for his life. He described everyone running off the bus and being the recipient of a total of 30-32 times stab wounds. R20 recalled:

I lost 8-9 pints of blood that day. The report I had from the surgeon says that it was one of the most extreme cases, in terms of from head to toe, that they had ever seen of knifing. (R20)

R20 was in the operating theatre for over 10 hours and remained in hospital for the following 11 days. The perpetrator was charged with attempted murder and was subsequently admitted into a mental hospital.

142 Another participant, R8, a Rabbi who was subjected to both assault and verbal abuse, was commuting on the train from Newcastle back to London on

Saturday night. R8 was sitting by a table with three people who were described as Orientals, minding his own business. A group of ‘big thug looking guys’ entered the carriage. R8 described them as ‘rowdy, vulgar and probably very drunk’. They were talking about kickboxing. After some time one of them noticed R8 and shouted out: ‘look, there is a Jew over there’. The group turned back to look over their headrest and they started to sing some anti-Jewish song.

‘I don’t remember the exact words, something about dirty Jew type song’. They then started throwing food at him. ‘I was looking down at the time, pretending to read a book. I pretended I didn’t speak English. I pretended I didn’t know what was happening’ (R8).

A further incident of physical violence was recounted by R12. During the Gaza war in 2009, R12 was walking home one night, when he noticed a man running towards him who continued to punch him in the face. R12 fell on the floor. He started kicking him. Another man joined and continued to kick R12 saying ‘this is because of what is happening to the people in Gaza’. Both men were wearing balaclavas and eventually ran off. R12 rang an ambulance and was taken to hospital.

Most recently were the events of R19 who was shopping with his sister, her husband and their 13-year-old son in Stamford Hill. As they came out of the shopping centre, a van was parked containing 3 men. A volley of racial abused ensued shouting of ‘Hitler is on the way’ and ‘Heil Hitler’. One of them proceeded to hurl 20/30 gas canisters at them from the open window. In

143 February 2017, the perpetrator was sentenced to a 6-months custodial sentence for racially aggravated harassment, with the judge expressing, in public domain that:

It is important to recall that the group had done absolutely nothing to offend you or to upset you. Yet you chose to insult them… Your conduct was simply disgraceful... No civilised society can allow any such conduct to be considered in any sense acceptable. (JC Reporter, 2017)

Of the whole sample, these 4 incidents were the most severe. Two of them resulted in prosecutions whereas neither the perpetrators on the train nor the two men wearing balaclavas, were apprehended.

Apart from these 6 interviewees, certain personal incidents came to light during the focus group. Due to the sheer number of focus group participants, it did not seem viable to ask each participant about the physical incidents which they were professionally involved in. Yet, a number of participants chose to volunteer this information. FG9, had to step in as councillor in Barnet, to put an end to the throwing of eggs out of speeding cars at Jewish residents (‘the egging’) which was taking place in Golders Green in 2011.

Two Rabbis, FG4 and FG1, expressed genuine concern of the rise of antisemitism on campuses. The widespread series of threats of violence has attracted much attention in the media. FG4, an outreach Rabbi who works on

University Campuses, stated that ‘antisemitism is rampant on campuses. He referred to an event in University A whereby anti-Israel protestors, who disrupted a talk by a former head of Israel’s secret service, set off fire alarms, smashed a window and hurled chairs, in January 2016:

144 There has been violence at the University X debate. A really left- wing guy came, very pro-Palestinian, extremely pro-Palestinian and they bashed the windows. He is a Muslim Israeli and about 50-100 of them, they were standing opposite the Jews, they came into the lecture room. They are not even students. The student I learn with every week was there. And he was protecting the door, to keep him in. He got beaten, he got pushed on the floor, he was threatened. This guy was a big guy. They had University A’s security there and they were running with the dustbins. (FG4)

This outreach Rabbi who has been involved in several London Universities was able to decipher which college was most affected by antisemitism:

In University B, this is normal, I walk in there and they clear their throat next to me or they look at me or I get comments. University C – it’s bad. University D – they have Israel apartheid week. It’s enormous on campus, it’s enormous. The second week in February, Jews are scared to go to university. (FG4)

The director of a Jewish outreach organisation, FG1 echoed these concerns and stated:

I must say that having been to campus for 30 years, it is getting much more overtly violent and threatening to students. When I wore a kapple in college, you got jibes, you got calls but it’s getting indeed very close to violent in some cases. University students are scared. (FG1)

Some key observations can be made regarding this data. The first observation to be made is that the victims are fully aware that their vulnerability to victimisation pivots on their public visibility. The interviewees themselves drew a direct link between their religious dress and the subsequent victimisation. As

R20 stated after describing being abused ‘I was clearly identifiable by my beard and skull cap as a Jew’. FG14 recognised: ‘if they are wearing a kippa, they would get comments’. The victims are fully aware that it is their public visibility as Jews which is a catalyst for the abuse. This corroborates with research which shows that minorities who were open about their ethnicity were more often victimized than those who concealed their identity (Wallengren, 2015).

145

This idea links to the second observation, which is the higher frequency of incidents which male participants were subjected to. Of the 6 participants who were assaulted, 5 were male and the female participant was verbally open about her Judaism. The higher rate of male victimisation is attributed to the greater ease with which Orthodox males could be identified due to their religious clothing. This tallies with existing data of violent crime, produced by the Office for National Statistics, which reports that men are more likely to be victims of hate crime than women (Dignan, 2006; Home office, 2013). This is also consistent with recent research of Graham and Boyd (2017) which highlights that Jewish men are more like to be subjected to antisemitic incidents than their female counterparts.

Female participants were fully aware that they were less easily identifiable as

Orthodox Jews, than their male counterparts. R17 mentioned that ‘I think men get it worse. Because they can’t be sure whether we (the women) are Jewish’.

R11 highlighted ‘I am very mindful when I go on the tube, which I have a daily commute, that I don’t have a kapple’. She continued to say:

I feel that as an Orthodox woman, although in the corporate environment, I wear skirts, there is no real visible identifier that identifies me as Jewish. And I have never experienced a direct either physical, verbal, anything interchange of antisemitism, but I feel that that’s largely due to the fact that I don’t have a visible symbol and I know my brother, who wears a kapple has had people say things to him on the train, people physically push or spit at him, throw things at him, and he very much feels that that is because he looks physically Jewish. I think there is a big difference there in gender. (R11)

146 R25 highlighted the difference in the type of incidents she has experienced in the spells she is alone, versus the periods when she is walking beside her husband:

We are definitely looked at when we walk. It doesn’t bother me, that’s who I am. I just want to show them that we are normal. I think my husband feels a bit more conscious with his beard and his hat and his white socks rolled up but I always tell them that everyone else walks around how they want, so why are we not entitled to? (R25)

A final observation to be made regarding all these incidents is that the assaults took place publicly with the victim being randomly selected. The concept which was discussed by Perry (2001) in the literature review regarding the fact that the victim is substitutable and immaterial is very apparent within these incidents. Meaning that the perpetrator was looking to harm any Jew, not a particular Jew, and the victim was simply a stranger picked at random (Levin and McDevitt, 1993). The victims herein were representatives of the Jewish community and were attacked on that basis.

Category 2: Verbal Abuse and Hostility

The second category of antisemitic incidents in my data was verbal abuse and hostility. Verbal abuse is a common component in the lives of Orthodox Jews and was the most prevalent category of antisemitism in the sample. Of the 28 people interviewed, 16 interviewees reported having been subjected to verbal abuse at least once. Those who were subjected to verbal abuse described a catalogue of incidents dating back to when they were children. As for instances of hostility, these were often verbally abusive incidents but with an added component. I will describe each category in turn.

147 a. Verbal Abuse

There were numerous examples of verbal abuse related by interviewees. It was

‘mainly people shouting from cars’ (R12) or ‘people hooting at us from their cars’ (R16). Much of the language used by repeated itself or had similar connotations. It is evident from the findings that the verbal abuse can express itself as a derogatory comment either about the victim’s identity as a Jew, or about being Jewish or at other times the abuse is linked to the wider context

(for example the Middle East Conflict or the Holocaust).

The term ‘Jew’ on its own was used in a derogatory fashion intended to be perceived as offensive. Interviewees recalled being calls ‘Jew’ (R27), ‘F…Jew’

(R25, R26), ‘Dirty- Jew songs’ (R8) or ‘I’m going to burn all the Jews and slit your throat’ (R19). These are examples of direct attacks on their identity.

A single incident of verbal abuse involved Jews being likened to animals (R22).

R22 happened to be in a pharmacy in Golders Green in the summer of 2016 when a man and a woman in their 20s walked in with a dog. R22 recalls that:

The pharmacist, who was a non-Jewish black lady, called over the counter and said, excuse me but you can’t bring animals into the pharmacy. And the woman was like screaming and basically she said: why can’t I bring animals in here, there are Jews allowed in here! And everyone was really shocked, thinking did she really just say that? Then she stormed out and the guy came in to get her prescription. The receptionist would not serve him. So, he stormed out and they were making like a whole scene outside. And the pharmacist from behind the counter went out and started yelling at them and basically told them never to come back into her pharmacy. (R22)

This incident of animal comparison, resembles an act of simianisation

(comparing black people to monkeys). Animalisation and simianisation are widespread elements of racist dehumanisation (Hund et.al., 2015). By way of

148 example, during the Black Death of the 14th Century, Jews were the scapegoats for the cause of the plague (Porter, 2014). Images that put Jews on a level with rats carrying epidemic plagues were part of the ideological escort of antisemitism (Hund et.al., 2015).

From an identity theory perspective, these incidents, which are all direct attacks on Jewish identity, raise the question of whether the interviewees felt that following these incidents, they began to question their identity. Did the thought of whether they ought to shape their identity or be less committed to being

Jewish cross their mind? This will be discussed in the chapter 6 (Coping

Mechanisms).

Apart from being derogatory to the victim’s identity, other verbally abusive incidents related to the wider context. Several respondents made derogatory comments relating to the discourse relating to Israel. Some of the examples provided by respondents were ‘Free Palestine’ (R3), ‘I wish those people would stop shooting little children’ (R3), ‘This is because of what is happening to the people in Gaza’ (R12) and ‘I hope you are happy, killing Gazan children’ (R1).

Verbal abuse relating to the Holocaust was most commonly raised by the respondents. The barrage of verbal abuse described by R19 during the incident of the gas canisters being thrown at him included words such as ‘Heil Hitler’ and ‘Hitler is on his way’. Several others provided examples such as ‘Hitler was right, he should have gassed you all’ (R3), ‘Nazi’ (R5) and ‘Heil Hitler’ (R16).

R14 described an incident whereby she was queuing up to check into a flight when a visibly Orthodox Jewish man, who was running late to a flight, was trying

149 to get past people in the queue without explaining to them that he was running late to the flight. She reported in interview that ‘you didn’t need a degree in psychology to see that he did not have all his cups in his top cupboard’. R14 described ‘a big English fellow who accompanied a disabled girl on a wheelchair, a really tall guy whom you didn’t want to start up with, turned around and he said to the crowd: and then they wonder why they gassed them’.

Finally, there were several interviewees who could not recall the actual language which was used, but stated that the words used were intended to be derogatory and offensive (R25, R28). The actual wording was immaterial to them; it was the tone used which resonated with them.

b. Hostility

Instances of hostility often included verbal abuse, but with an added component to it by the perpetrator. There were several hostile incidents which some of the participants were subjected to. These varied in degree.

Kelly (1987) claimed that a ‘complex range of factors affect the impact of particular experiences’. Therefore ‘creating a hierarchy of abuse based on seriousness is inappropriate’ as ‘all forms of sexual violence are serious and have effects’ (Kelly, 1987, p.49). Iganski argues that Kelly’s ‘way of thinking about acts of violence against women can be utilised for the conceptualisation of hate crime more broadly’ (Iganski, 2008, p.11). It is not the relative seriousness of each act which distinguishes one act from another, but rather, as Kelly observed, the relative frequency with which such acts occur. So too, assessing the severity of the hostility is complex. I chose to assess the degree

150 of severity starting with basic verbal hostility and any mounting aggravating feature increased the level of severity.

i. At the lower end of the severity scale were incidents of hostility which could be considered part of children’s play, such as the incident of R26, a headmaster of a secondary boy’s school, who related that ‘sometimes people, especially kids, look at me and snicker’.

ii. The category of hostility increased when it was not confined to verbal abuse.

By way of example, R5 was driving when a pedestrian spotted him and called out ‘Nazi’ whilst making a Nazi salute, putting up the level of offensiveness by a notch as in this instance. The Nazi salute which reinforces Nazi ideology, is a criminal offence in certain countries.

iii. On a more offensive level of hostility was the recent antisemitic incident of

R16. The antisemitic hostility extended beyond R16 to her children. R16 took her two children to a soft play, which she regularly frequented. As soon as she walked into the soft play, one of the receptionist said to her ‘a bit in an aggressive way’ that she is not allowed to bring any of her own food (kosher food). R16 said ‘of course not’ and went to the counter to buy the one kosher snack which they regularly sell. They happened to have run out of this particular snack. R16 politely asked them whether she could give her child that particular snack, which she happened to have in her bag. They said no. She recounted:

‘I had a three-year-old asking me then if she could eat it and they said no – I thought it was pretty harsh’. R16 asked to speak to the manager, whom she described as ‘horrible’. R16 asked whether this was personal and then a

151 shouting match ensued. From one minute to the next, the manager was shouting at R16 to leave the soft play. R16 described it as ‘a very intimidating experience’. R16 continued to expound:

And then it got worse. She then said to her colleagues – we are not having more of these people; we are going to cancel them out of private parties. So she opened up the book of bookings and they were looking through. I heard one name that they picked up which was Cohen (name changed), and yes let’s get the number. That I felt, was already overstepping the boundary. And I heard her say call the police, because I didn’t step out quickly enough. (R16)

Various observations came to light from both these incidents of verbal abuse and hostility. There were several patterns similar to the incidents of physical attacks. The link between the Jewish visibility of each respondent and the repeated verbal assaults, as well as the public visibility of each incident.

Respondents were acutely aware that the victimisation was a direct link to their public visibility as Jews.

Unlike other incidents, the incident which R22 witnessed stands out, as it was the only incident where a member of the public spoke out against the perpetrator. R22 described that:

That was very nice, because she (the pharmacist) was not Jewish but she was totally standing up for us, and it kind of relates to minorities, she probably gets the fact that that’s a really not nice thing to say… I can’t believe she did that; she could have been stabbed. She really was standing up for us. I went in some time later, and she said, apparently, I’m famous because of the Facebook post. And she said people are mentioning it a lot. (R22)

This incident was one of the only incidents which left mixed emotions within the victim. The derogatory statement of likening Jews to animals, was counterbalanced by the outburst of support which the pharmacist displayed.

152 A further observation in my sample is that victimisation of verbal abuse was more pronounced against male participants. Of the 16 respondents who were subjected to verbal abuse, 9 were male. Of the 6 females, 4 of them believed that they were shouted at because they were walking beside their husbands at the time. This finding is congruent with the Open Society Foundations (2011) which established that a veiled Muslim woman, walking publicly alongside a male relative, would be less likely to suffer abuse. In my study the outward physical appearance of the Jewish males, like the apparent physical appearance of Muslim females, triggered the attack. It was only in a couple of instances that the females were abused independent of their husband’s presence.

An additional observation where patterns could be observed is that a number of verbally abusive as well as one physically abusive incident were directly connected to the Israel – Palestine conflict. As outlined in the literature review

(Home Office Report, 2016), ‘trigger events’ in the Middle East have a ripple effect in the UK and specific wording accompanied these incidents, which indicated that the attacks are a form of reprisal for the Middle East conflict.

A further observation to be made is that some participants highlighted that it is not the everyday shouting out of the car that is disquieting. R19 described experiencing verbal abuse:

Very often, two to three times a week at least…whenever there is a problem or anything comes up, the first thing we will hear is you f…ing Jew or verbal, or any kind of abuse, just because I am Jewish. (R19)

153 R28 also made a distinction between the infrequent verbal abuse of someone shouting some abuse out of their car which he would not respond to, and the times that that verbal abuse ensues following a particular incident. For example,

R28 described that in sporadic instances, when he is not able to reverse on a narrow street because a car is blocking him from behind, he would be shouted at: ‘you Jews, you never reverse, it’s ALWAYS you Jews doing it! It’s always you Jews’. R28 described that it is these types of incidents which reflect ‘their’ true feelings regarding the Jews.

For R28, it was not the shouting from cars which was hurtful, it was what subsequently materialised which was more disturbing as these incidents indicate a more latent antisemitism that is triggered by another conflict. It is congruent with the findings of Iganski (2008), outlined in the literature review, who asserts that the majority of antisemitic incidents are not prompted by ideological conviction but rather display antisemitism which lies beneath the surface of these individuals. The encounters described herein, were common- place encounters in the respondents’ everyday life, which presented an opportunity for the perpetrator to express his / her bigotry against the Jews.

A further observation to be made is that, contrary to Zempi’s research (2014) which showed that veiled Muslim women, at times, rejected the boundaries between the offender and the victim and retaliated against the perpetrator, the respondents herein did not retaliate verbally nor physically. The inaction which many participants referenced, suggested that this is a typical incident in their lives, which does not warrant a response. This is in line with Perry’s conceptual framework of hate crime (2001), whereby offenders and victims are described

154 in terms of their ‘superior’ and ‘subordinate’ identities. By not confronting the perpetrator nor retaliating, the victims herein, it can be argued, lived up to their

‘subordinate’ identity.

For some respondents, the type of antisemitic incidents, particularly the ‘low- level’ types of abuse – are rarely ‘one-off incidents, but part of a broader continuum of antisemitism, endured by Orthodox Jews on a regular basis. This corroborates with studies which have confirmed the pattern of repeat victimisation among victims of racist violence (Phillips and Sampson, 1998).

The experience of victimisation is often a process, rather than a single event

(Walklate, 2008). It is therefore difficult to judge when it starts nor ends as it is an on-going process with a cumulative impact upon the individuals concerned

(Bowling, 1999; Kelly, 1988). Individuals lives are framed by actual or perceived threat of violence (Philips and Bowling, 2003).

In concluding this section, it is apparent that verbal abuse was a particularly common feature in the lives of Orthodox Jews. The prevalence of the verbal antisemitic incidents described, resonated with the findings from the survey carried out by Sweiry’s research (2014) which reported higher levels of verbal abuse among the visibly Jewish respondents. It is evident from the findings of my study that the verbal abuse can express itself as an outright derogatory comment about the victim’s identity; simply for being Jewish, at other times the abuse is linked to the wider context of the conflict in the Middle East, the historical context and yet at other times the abuse is reactionary to other events.

Category 3: Discrimination

155 The next two categories, namely discrimination and prejudicial attitudes, are to be differentiated from one another. Prejudice relates to interpersonal matters between individuals, and has been defined as ‘any attitude, emotion or behaviour towards members of a group which directly or indirectly implies some negativity or antipathy towards that group’ (Brown, 2010, p.7). Discrimination, is when people act out on those prejudices and it is more systemic.

Discrimination “is traditionally deemed public, because of the direct involvement of state actors” (Ahmad, 2004 p.1265). Discrimination may involve limiting access to minority groups, either intentionally or accidentally, or by putting in place certain policies or behaving in particular ways to further distant the dominant group from the marginalised group (Carter, 2007a, 2007b). In short, prejudice occurs between individuals and discrimination is systemic, however this is not something which I want to explore in too much detail as my data for these types of incidents is limited.

In analysing the data, discrimination manifested itself in educational settings, within employment and when obtaining services. Whereas the previous two categories were tangible, namely the victim was either abused or not, incidents of discrimination are less verifiable. Was the incident intended to discriminate the participant based on his / her identity? However, as my study is concerned with the types of antisemitic incidents and the perceptions of the participants, and in line with the definition outlined in the Macpherson report, it is the participant’s belief that is of material importance, not whether these incidents can be challenged.

a. Discrimination on Campus

156 At the time of writing this thesis, incidents of antisemitism were prominent on university campuses. The Chief Rabbi, in Oral evidence given on 14 July 2016 to the Home Affairs Committee in preparation of the 2016-2017 report on antisemitism, expressed specific concerns about the situation faced by Jewish students:

There are Jewish students leaving home for the very first time who are very excited to be part of the open, free world and feel so liberated when coming on to campus. They express certain views and are immediately being identified, stereotypically, as people with a certain mind-set and with a certain outlook and being demonised and linked to who knows what. Some ugly things are happening and that causes us a lot of concern (Home Affairs Committee, 2016, p. 36).

Of the whole sample, only 6 participants related incidents of discrimination. Of those 6 incidents, 2 participants were university students. My sample merely totalled 3 university students, one of whom was a senior male respondent (R6) who did not share the same experiences as the other 2 younger male university students (R3 and R9).

R9 described the lecturer not obliging in accommodating his religious needs:

One of the lecturers in University C. We had to do a presentation, and my group had to do it on Friday afternoon. I asked the lecturer if we could switch my group with the Thursday afternoon one and she said: I don’t know, I will find out. She knew I was Jewish because I had to leave on Friday afternoons. It was a 2-hour slot and I had to leave after the first hour. And she didn’t switch them. I said I couldn’t do it. When I left the lecture, one of my friends asked her if we could switch and she said, the words slipped out of her mouth: he has to choose between his degree and his religion, with a face followed with instant regret – realising that she shouldn’t have said that. (R9)

The presentation counted towards 15% of the overall module, and R9 lost the opportunity to obtain these credits. R3 had a similar experience:

157 When I came to interview, I had to tell them all about Shabbos and that I wouldn’t be able to work on Saturdays and that I would have to leave earlier on Fridays. But when it came to an exam which was scheduled on a Friday evening in the winter, I told the teachers that I keep the Shabbos and that I can’t do that. And her reaction was that she rolled her eyes in front of the whole class and goes something like: we are not going to move the whole exam just for you and your religion. (R3)

One of the most basic tenants of Orthodox Jewry is the keeping of Shabbos.

Orthodox Jews would not desecrate the Shabbos in order to advance their education, or their careers. The keeping of the Shabbos is paramount. R3’s exam was moved ‘eventually’ (R3). In accordance with Carter’s (2007a) definition of discrimination, this incident would constitute discrimination whether the lecturer was intentional in refusing to move the exam or whether it was genuinely not plausible to move the exam. It is the victim’s views which is of relevance (Macpherson Report, 1999).

Perry (2010) argues that hate crimes on campus may not only be a way of attempting to suppress ‘difference’ (what is coined as ‘doing difference’ and referred to in the literature review), but of actualising an identity in new uncertain territory. According to Perry (2010), commencing a university degree may be the first time in which students are confronted with diversity and therefore they may be exposed to greater social diversity than previously experienced.

The more senior respondent, R6, was not subjected to any antisemitic incidents, retelling that he had ‘absolutely no difficulties’ whilst on campus.

There can be a number of explanations for this sharp contrast; the most obvious being his age. As the discriminatory comments in other incidents stemmed from young fellow university students or lecturers who were putting hurdles along the

158 way (such as exclusion from group work, refusal to move examination times to accommodate the Shabbos), R6 was in the privileged position of being a mature student (68 years old) and therefore by definition commanded a certain level of respect. R6 acknowledged that:

There is a lot of sympathy due to my age rather than the kapple on my head. The vast majority of students are 20, 21, maybe 23 if they are doing a masters. Most students in archaeology are ladies, girls, which may make a difference. (R6)

b. Discrimination at work

Respondents who sought employment outside the Jewish community sought work which would accommodate the needs of the Orthodox Jewish community.

Several respondents believed opportunities of obtaining employment were hampered because of their Jewish observance. R12 described:

I did have a job interview for some company and I like to be honest about leaving early on Fridays. And it was an issue. It was an issue. Possibly it cost me the job. I told them that I would have to leave early and come back on Saturday night, but it was still an issue. (R12)

R1 echoed those thoughts:

When you say that you can’t work on Shabbat, then you don’t even get considered for jobs… Sometimes I feel that if it was another religion, like Christianity or Islam, they wouldn’t even question it, it would be something that they have to do. Otherwise there will be protests, but because we accept it and move on to other things, we don’t pursue it. (R1)

R1’s comments highlight the expression of prejudice which is inherent within her as well. R1 has preconceived notions that had she been a Christian or a

Muslim, she would not have been subjected to this level of discrimination.

159 R13, who had secured a junior position in a law firm, had to leave early on

Shabbos and one of the partners said: ‘well this is never going to work is it’.

Along a similar line was the incident of R11, who expressed lack of certainty as to whether there was an antisemitic motivation in her incident. R11 described arriving at work a couple of mornings marginally late. During her appraisal which was months later, her boss said ‘something along the lines that I need to pull up on the punctuality and obviously because I leave early as well’ (R11).

An important observation to be drawn out of these perceptions was that the need to keep Shabbos by the participants was at times not positively received by employers or lecturers. Herein lies the subjectivity of identifying certain incidents as discriminatory. There is a fine line in knowing with certainty whether these incidents have an antisemitic element to them or whether they are utterly justifiable. Certain incidents were referred to which, whilst they could be perceived as objectively justifiable by some participants, could nonetheless be interpreted as derogatory or offensive by other participants. Ultimately, and in accordance with my definition, it is their personal perceptions and views that are of material importance.

c. Discrimination in other services

A small number of discriminatory incidents were described by a number of respondents in the process of obtaining services. Discrimination by a local authority was described by a participant as a further category where antisemitism has become more blatant. R15, who holds a position of authority in a Housing Association, described that Jews are being discriminated against by the local council, which is responsible for the allocation of council housing.

160 ‘They are truly antisemitic’ she stated. ‘Housing is a potent element of society’s needs. And the local council does not want the Orthodox community to grow and expand in the area. They really don’t’. She stated that ‘every step of the way, the local authority is against us. They are putting up obstacles and they treat us unfairly’.

R15 elaborated by providing two examples in the way the local council discriminated against the Orthodox community. First, new housing provisions were implemented in the local council, which disadvantaged the Jewish

Orthodox community, and whilst these provisions were intended to honour those on the housing list, these Jewish families who had been on the housing list for years, were taken off the list. A further example she provided is that when a house is eventually offered to a Jewish family, they offer a home which it out of the Jewish area. R15 explains:

The law of the country says that it’s not considered reasonable to re-house a family who are dependent on their cultural needs, the shops, the schools, the synagogues, and to put them out of the area. That is not considered reasonable. (R15)

R15 feels that the local council regularly flouts the law. Another respondent,

R14, felt that her son, who has had a multitude of operations since birth, did not receive the high level of care that she was accustomed to on one particular occasion. Her very ill son was discharged from hospital by a senior Muslim consultant when he ought to have remained put in hospital. R14 recalls:

My son was so sick and they were going to discharge him on Shabbos and his stitches hadn’t jelled together. He was actually leaking water from his wounds and they were going to discharge him. That fellow was so antisemitic… (R14)

161 R14 felt that the failure of the consultant to take due care for her son was antisemitic. She felt that he failed to reasonably protect her son, despite his professional duty to do so. She believed that he potentially risked her son’s life, taking the perceived level of discrimination to another level. However, R14’s perception could be erroneous. It may be that this particular consultant was professionally negligent frequently, but for R14 she associated the intentional negligence with her religion.

In sharp contrast to Sweiry’s research (2014), whose findings reflect a substantial number of discriminatory incidents, only a small number of specific discriminatory incidents were raised within my sample. In understanding the reason for the relatively small number of discriminatory incidents, two different explanations can be provided: a theoretical one and a practical one. On the theoretical front, incidents of discrimination, due to their often-non-public nature, are rather subjective and it is the victims’ views which are material in deciding whether he / she considers it to be an antisemitic incident. Therefore, a discriminatory incident is reflective of particular sensitivities. On a practical level, incidents of discrimination within employment were limited in number, as the great majority of participants were employed within Jewish organisations, or self-employed. Only 6 of the participants worked outside the Jewish community and therefore the overall exposure of this sample of interviewees was limited. The occasions to face discrimination were finite. This will be discussed in more detail in the discussion of prejudicial attitudes and stereotyping (category 4). Suffice to say at this stage that this is not a weakness in the sampling strategy, it is merely the reality of many Orthodox Jews - that their employment is available within the community.

162

It was apparent that the occasions to face discrimination were even more finite for Stamford Hill residents. Of the 6 participants who work outside the Jewish community, only one participant was a resident of Stamford Hill. This is congruent with the material described in the literature review which reflects that the Stamford Hill community, with its tight knit support system and opportunities for employment, have an infrastructure whereby community members rarely seek employment outside the community and hence exposure to discrimination is limited.

Category 4: Prejudicial attitudes / stereotyping

A further category of antisemitic expression was the expression of prejudicial attitudes or stereotyping. These two headings have been bracketed together as they are both biases which maintain social inequality. Prejudicial attitudes relate to feelings which people have about members of other groups and stereotyping relate to specific beliefs about a group. Prejudicial attitudes were apparent in employment and in discussions of Israel.

a. Prejudicial attitudes in employment

R13 was the only participant who described prejudicial attitudes in employment.

Those prejudicial attitudes date back a couple of decades ago to the time when for instance R13 was an article clerk in a law firm and she was asking for the reasons behind the commencement of the Falkland war to a 2-year qualified lawyer. His response was: ‘that’s actually because you are not one of us’. R13 stated that these prejudicial comments have completely subsided.

Nonetheless, she is cognisant of the fact that the reason that they have

163 subsided is due to the fact that she occupies a senior partner position in a city law firm and that any prejudicial comments would no longer be appropriate vis- a-vis someone in her position. That recognition was echoed by R21, who although she had not been exposed to antisemitism, was cognisant of the fact that she was ‘protected’ as her boss was Jewish and ‘if you are antisemitic to me, you are by definition antisemitic to the boss’.

One area where the community has its own infrastructures and resources is in ensuring that organisations provide employment for its members. Of the 28 interviewees, 15 participants were either self-employed, unemployed, or employed by Jewish organisations, and 6 participants were employed outside the Jewish community. The relatively small number of respondents who work outside the Jewish community is in line with the findings of Holman and Holman

(2002) who suggested that the high level of self-employment among Jewish men is ‘a reflection of the enterprise traditionally associated with the Jewish community and the need for work that can accommodate religious observance’

(p.47).

The minimal number of incidents which fell under the categories of discrimination and prejudicial attitudes reflects the lack of exposure within the

Jewish community. As discussed above, the insularity and the infrastructure which the Orthodox community has built, allow individuals to seek employment within their community, eliminating the need to reach out of the community. The survey conducted by JPR (2014), referred to in the literature review, echoes that the lifestyle of Orthodox Jews can be contrasted with the non-religious

Jews. ‘Orthodox Jews typically spend a greater proportion of time within

164 exclusively Jewish circles, and value this exclusivity as a means of facilitating

Jewish life and preserving and protecting the Jewish community’ (JPR, 2014, p.29).

b. Prejudicial attitudes of Israel

Among the 6 respondents who work outside of the Jewish community, there were some expressions of prejudicial attitudes of Israel. R3, whilst in university, had to work closely with a Muslim Lebanese student, which made R3 feel ‘very uncomfortable’. There were a number of incidents with the Lebanese young man, which had ‘hidden antisemitic meaning’ to them. R3 stated:

I offered him a cigarette, he looked at the packet and refused it when he saw that it was from Israel… One instance, we were in class and the teachers asked if we saw any documentaries. He said he saw one on occupied Palestine. Also, when we started making documentaries, he made one on the BDS movement [a global campaign promoting various forms of boycotting against Israel] and boycotting Israel goods. I just had to sit there and hold my tongue. (R3)

R3, because of his visibility of being a Jew, was being collectively responsible for the actions of Israel. The Lebanese student was targeting R3 because in his eyes he was the representative of the Israeli nation. These instances made R3 feel very uncomfortable, particularly as he knew that they were going to have to work as a team and establish some type of a working relationship.

c. Stereotyping

Modern day Jews are stereotyped as miserly, spend-thrift and are often portrayed in caricatures and comics counting money (Felsenstein, 1995).

Within the data, there were instances where Jews were stereotyped for their insularity or their preoccupation with money.

165

R13, who has been meeting her financial targets at work, has had comments from colleagues about:

The Jewish networks. They see it as an advantage that I’ve got, that Jews stick together. Actually, most of my clients are non- Jewish. It has potentially negative connotations around the Jewish conspiracy type thing. (R13)

Another example of stereotypical attitudes referred to in the sample, was Jews’ preoccupation with money. Focusing on this theme, two examples provided by the participants highlight some of the ways in which stereotypes presented itself. FG13, a counsellor who, in his younger years, worked in a publishing company whilst negotiating the price of prints with another firm, was told ‘don’t be so Jewish about it’. Another interviewee, R9 was sitting in a lecture, when a university lecturer posed an intricate financial question to a full lecture hall. R9 gave the answer. The lecturer was impressed and asked R9 how he knew the answer to this particular question. At that point, someone shouted out from the back of the lecture hall: ‘because he is Jewish’. These were the types of stereotypical attitudes of Jews’ preoccupation with money that respondents were subjected to.

The antisemitic discourse which has been observed in the last two centuries

(Perry and Schweitzer, 2002) of Jews being rich, insular or powerful have not resonated with the interviews in this research. The data herein also does not corroborate with Sweiry’s study (2014) whose sample endured a fairly frequent number of stereotyping. Incidents of stereotyping within my sample were limited. The respondents in Sweiry’s research (2014) spread across the board in terms of their Jewish observance and therefore those who were not visibly

166 Jews were subjected to a high level of stereotyping. I suggest that the majority of those who hold unfavourable views of Jews would be cautious in expressing those views in the presence of someone who is visibly Jewish. The sample herein was visibly Jewish and therefore any stereotyping would have been directly intentional.

Nonetheless, despite the limited number of discriminatory incidents, some of these incidents had deep emotional impacts for the recipients, which will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.

Category 5: Distribution of Material

The final category of antisemitic hate crime described by interviewees were instances whereby certain material, which was in the public eye, was considered antisemitic by the respondents.

During the Israeli - Gaza war, R11 described seeing two slogans in central

London. Whilst she was not able to recall the exact wording of those slogans, she remembered that they were ‘anti-Jewish’. She also recalled, on another occasion, walking on Brent Street in NW London and seeing someone driving past holding a Hamas flag outside of the car window, whilst shouting wildly. ‘I don’t remember what they were saying, but those two incidents together, were not a positive experience’ (R11).

FG12, a councillor, explained that he was required to intervene when he received a telephone call at 11pm informing him that various posters were hung by anti-Israel activists on the London underground: ‘anti-Israel poster, that BDF

167 business’. FG12 acted speedily by contacting the Deputy Mayor of Transport, so that by 6am the following morning they were all removed. It was important for FG12 not to expose the public to these unauthorised adverts.

These two instances, the respondents felt, intended to stir up religious hatred against Jews (which is contrary to Public Order Act 1986 s.29). The respondents were aware that even though these materials were not specifically directed at them, the aim of the distribution of this material was to incite others to express their hostility against Jews as well as to intimidate Jews in general.

This is in line with Boeckmann and Turpin-Petrosino (2002), referred to in the literature review, who state that hate crime victims are immutable – the hate crime is directed at any member of that community.

An important observation to be made is that at times, as shown above, the offensive material is perpetrated by members of the public who are unknown to the participants, whereas on other occasions, the offensive material stems from someone whom there is a relationship with. R3, the university student, recollects that his lecturer placed a post on Facebook: ‘I don’t know why Ken

Livingstone is being suspended from the party, it is the truth, Hitler was a

Zionist’. R3 describes:

I quickly took a picture of his Facebook because I had a feeling that he would delete it. Thank G-d I did take a picture because he did delete it. And I reposted his screen shot to show that that’s what he said. He didn’t know that I took this picture unless I reposted it and then he started arguing his case. He said he thought it was a fact, that he looked it up on Wikipedia. I was quite argumentative, going back and forth. And actually, he reported me posting his screen page. (R3)

168 The distribution of material is not directed at any particular participant, but is intended to send a message to the general Jewish community. Levitt and

McDevitt (2002), referred to in the literature review, view that hate crime is different as it is not targeted at individuals, but rather at the whole community and therefore its potential scale of harm is greater. Hate crimes are intended as message crimes to put that particular community as a whole at fear (McDevitt,

1933).

Examining the two neighbourhoods together, it is evident that incidents of discrimination and prejudicial attitudes are far less widespread than the first two categories of physical or verbal abuse. A key conclusion to be made here is that incidents of discrimination and prejudicial attitudes discussed in this chapter were directed at participants who are integrated into the community at large; it is only when minorities were integrated into the mainstream that that these prejudicial attitudes and discrimination can arise. Those participants who have minimal involvement and exposure with the community at large, had not had the opportunity to face any prejudice nor discrimination. This explains the reason that Sweiry’s findings (2014), whose sample included non-religious

Jews, totalled a much higher rate of discrimination and prejudicial attitudes. It is only when the participants are integrated and are faced with the opportunity to meet others who are different to themselves, that these opportunities for discrimination or prejudicial attitudes arise. By sheltering themselves within their own infrastructures, the Orthodox Jewish community manage to minimise exposure to discrimination and prejudicial attitudes.

169 In summarising this section on the types of incidents which respondents were subjected to directly, a range of themes were identified in this section. Most noticeable was the frequency of offending. This section highlighted the prevalence of offences which Orthodox Jews were subjected to. Victimisation for some of the respondents formed part of day-to-day. Due to the infrastructure of the Orthodox Jewish community, and as most respondents work within the

Jewish community, certain categories of incidents (such as physical and verbal abuse) were more prevalent than others (such as incidents of prejudice and discrimination). Second, this section highlighted that the antisemitic incidents endured ranged in severity. It showed that the severity of offending ranged from low-level criminality (shouting abuse out of the car window) to near murder.

Third, there was an awareness by respondents that the vulnerability to victimisation pivots on their public visibility as Jews and that it is the visibility of the respondents which enables them to be controlled by those around them.

They made a direct link between their outward appearance and their victimisation. Moreover, it was apparent that young respondents in their 20s and 30s, as well as male respondents, were subjected to increased number of incidents. Finally, there was an awareness by respondents of the lack of support by bystanders who had witnessed the victimisation.

4.3 Vicarious Victimisation

Having explored the direct incidents of antisemitism, I will move on to discuss incidents of vicarious victimisation. Agnew (2002) referred to vicarious victimisation as the victimisation of those close others, or those physically proximate to the actual victim. There is a vicarious strain experienced by others around the actual victim (Agnew, 2002). Drawing on this, individuals’

170 perceptions of antisemitism may be formed not only by the antisemitic incidents they were directly subjected to, but also others’ incidents. Recalling my earlier definition, I have chosen to define vicarious victimisation as: i. An antisemitic incident which was directed at a significant other to the

participant, or ii. An incident which did not set out to be antisemitic but which created

feelings of unease.

a. Knowing someone else

A rather significant proportion of the sample, virtually half, recollected antisemitic targeting, at a significant other. Meaning that someone who is close to them, had directly endured antisemitism. In total, 12 participants described someone whom they know, experiencing either antisemitic physical abuse, verbal abuse or both.

Five of the participants stated that someone whom they know had been the target of physical abuse. The examples provided by participants were as follows: R8’s good friend was attacked in the street, R26 knows a boy who was stabbed, R18’s husbands’ coat was set on fire when two boys threw a cigarette lighter at him and all of R10’s sons had their hats pulled off and eggs being thrown at them. Finally, R11, described that her brother had been the subject of extreme verbal and physical abuse. A number of perpetrators pushed, spat and abused him on the train on several occasions.

Seven of the participants described someone whom they know being the target of verbal abuse. The examples provided were as follows: R13’s daughter was

171 subject to verbal abuse, R4’s son was subjected to several antisemitic comments in university, R19’s brothers were frequently the targets of verbal abuse, R23’s parents were shouted at by a group of children: ‘you Jews’ and

R6 has heard antisemitic comments being shouted out of car windows at his friends who were walking ahead of him. R16 recalled:

Just now in the summer holiday my cousins were walking towards Heathrow airport and they said that a Polish man was running towards them very aggressively. Swearing at them, very anti- Jewish. That wasn’t physical but it was fairly aggressive. He made the young kids scream and run for their lives. (R16)

R27, a mother of 8 children, described that these incidents occur frequently

‘Incidents that have happened, with my own children, with other people. We are talking about little things. Not major things. Being told, Jew come here and being spat.’ She described most recently:

My daughter was very afraid, she was told Jew girl come here. She tried to run as fast as she could away from these teens. She is 11. And it was in a street that there were enough people around and Jewish shops around so she just ran into the first Jewish shop that she saw and she stayed there until they passed. (R27)

Studies show that violence directed at family members produce much distress

(Agnew, 2002). The remoteness of an incident is questioned when it’s their own child. The parameters of when direct victimisation ends and vicarious victimisation starts are not clear. These instances of vicarious victimisation form part of the perceptions of participants and the direct incidents alone cannot be seen in isolation. It resonates with the idea outlined in the literature review that hate crimes effect not only individuals, but also have repercussions on the community, whereby intimidation of the group results from the victimisation of one or a few members of that group (Weinstein, 1992, cited in Iganski, 2001).

172 An observation to note within the analysis, is that none of the respondents described incidents of prejudicial attitudes or discrimination directed at significant others. It would be incorrect to conclude that those categories did not take place, but one could infer that in comparison to the physical or verbal assaults, these incidents may not have been at the forefront of their minds in recounting the incidents of others or in other words, that it is the incidents of physical or verbal abuse of others, which impacted them more significantly. It can be deduced that it is the most severe of incidents which would first be related.

b. Not intended / ambiguous

Aside from these incidents where victimisation of close others took place, there were incidents which lacked clarity as to whether they were infused with antisemitic motivation. As described in the subsection of discriminatory comments, there were a few incidents by employers who questioned the viability of the participant leaving early for the Shabbos. While these incidents could be perceived as objectively justifiable, they could nonetheless be interpreted as derogatory or offensive by the participant. These instances, may not set out to be antisemitic, but could have the effect of being offensive. From the theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism, the meaning of objects is not inherent within the objects, but is conferred upon them as they are interpreted, organised and represented through social interactions (Blumer,

1969). Therefore, it is the meaning which respondents gave to these incidents, which is of material importance, rather than the intention of the perpetrator.

173 There are also governmental guidelines which apply across the board, but which may not take account the religious sensitivities of the Orthodox Jewish community. By way of example, R27, referred to the Ofsted requirement to incorporate the full sex education syllabus into the school’s curriculum. In her previous employment, Ofsted was not satisfied that the school’s curriculum did not include the full sex education syllabus and the case was taken to a tribunal.

The tribunal found in favour of the school. This is an example whereby a governmental organisation (such as Ofsted) did not set out to be antisemitic (as these are requirements which are expected across the schools), and yet their guidelines contravene the ethos of the school.

Some of the difficulties in grouping such antisemitic incidents into separate categories are considered. By separating the incidents of antisemitism into different categories, I am limiting the extent and pervasiveness of incidents for particular individuals. By way of example, R3 was cumulatively subjected to verbal insults (‘I wish these people would stop shooting innocent people’, ‘free

Palestine’), having to contend with his lecturer placing a post on Facebook that

‘it’s true, Hitler is a Zionist’, discrimination (lecturer not obliging in moving the time of his exam) as well as prejudicial attitudes (colleagues making comments on BDF and refusing to accept cigarettes from Israel). These incidents were further aggravated by the institutional failure of the University or the lecturer to stop the abuse. Individually these incidents may seem trivial, but cumulatively and because victimisation is a process, they have deeply effected R3 to the extent that he withdrew from higher education.

174 There are several short summaries to set out here. In answering the first part of the first research question of ‘what antisemitic incidents are Orthodox Jews in London subjected to’, these direct as well as the vicarious victimisation incidents, provide an indication of the different types of antisemitic incidents which respondents were subjected to. The incidents collated provide an understanding of the prevalence of antisemitic incidents, which enables the reader to form a view of the hate crime which is being perpetrated.

Second, the high pervasiveness rate among this sample, almost all of which went unreported, indicates that police data as well as communal statistical data, such as the data produced by the CST, is not cognisant of the consistent and habitual prevalence of antisemitic incidents which take place in the lives of the

Orthodox British Jews. My data supports the notion that hate crime offences are not reported. The reasons behind participants not reporting will be further discussed in Chapter 6 of coping mechanisms. Statistics of antisemitic incidents among the Orthodox Jewish community present to be a considerably more significant reality than that figured in police and communal data.

The next section of this chapter will examine the immediate response of the respondents to the incidents described above. I will discuss the long-term response of respondents in Chapter 6 (coping mechanisms), whereas in the following section I will explore the way respondents felt and reacted in the immediacy of the incident.

4.4 Immediate response to the incident

175 The above analysis of categories of antisemitism provided the background and foundation for the second half of this analysis chapter; the exploration of the immediate response, if any, of the respondents to these incidents. The exceeding and deep emotional impact of hate crime victims was discussed at length within the literature review. In this section, observations and patterns will be drawn regarding the immediate response which these incidents of antisemitism had on the participants; the way respondents felt and reacted immediately following the incident. Any subsequent long-term lifestyle response, such as avoiding certain places or negotiating their identity as Jews, was not considered to fall under this section of immediate response and will be discussed in chapter 6 of coping mechanisms.

The studies referred to in the literature review reported a range of emotional impacts including thoughts of suicide, low self-esteem, depression and anxiety, feelings of anger and despair, insomnia, alcohol and drug dependency as well as lack of trust in others (Herek et al., 1999; Iganski and Lagou,

2014; Lawrence, 1999; Leets, 2002). This section of this chapter will show that the degree of the immediate responses to these incidents varied extensively.

Some incidents were dismissed as having no great significance, whereas others were found to be a source of great concern. By and large, the most common response was to normalise and accept the victimisation.

a. Fear and Shock

The most extreme immediate responses were described as feelings of fear and shock. The victims of physical assault referred to their feelings in the immediate aftermath of the incident using various wording, but all of which showed genuine

176 concern. R19, the victim of the thrown gas canisters described ‘I felt shock, horrified. I was really shocked; I was scared to be honest…I was very overwhelmed when the gas canisters incident happened’. R12, the victim of the men wearing balaclavas related ‘it was scary at the time’. R20, the victim of the attempted murder, described: ‘Quite shocked…Initially, at the time, I was obviously quite shaken up’. R8 described:

I have never been so scared of my entire life. I had a Berlin 1938 type of feeling. I didn’t know what to do, I didn’t know what was going to happen to me. I was all by myself. The other people on the train pretended to pay no attention whatsoever and did absolutely nothing about it. I was sitting opposite other minorities, and no one stood up, no one said anything about it. (R8)

Bowling (2009) highlighted that recurrent incidents of victimisation can destabilise the sense of security of actual as well as other potential victims. I found that the distressing nature of some antisemitic victimisation had created high levels of fear amongst some participants. It has been argued by researchers that in many cases, the specific fear that victims of hate crime express, relate to the fear of death (Stanko and Hobdell, 1993). By comparing his experience to 1938 Berlin, and not being supported by anyone, R20 was implying that he feared for his life, and was inevitably doomed.

An observation to be made is that the most pronounced emotional expressions were used by the victims of physical assault, which one might have expected; the more distressing the assault, the more significant the emotional response.

Nonetheless, a number of women whose experiences were less severe, expressed pronounced emotional responses which was perhaps less expected.

177 R13 who faced prejudicial comments whilst at work described feeling ‘at the time, very vulnerable. And probably angry at the time’. R11, who had witnessed anti-Jewish slogans and a car driving down a street in NW London holding a

Hamas flag, expressed feelings of fear:

At that time (during the Israel / Gaza conflict), the community alert was much higher, so there was a lot more focus on visible security, all those sorts of things, so at that time I definitely felt scared, absolutely. (R11)

A Hamas flag, for R11, was a symbolic object. Lowndes and Madziva (2016) investigated the impacts on migrants of the Go Home Van (GHV) which drove around with giant posters offering migrants a choice of ‘voluntary departure’ or criminal arrest. Their research highlights that the vans played a very significant role in the migrant’s experiences; that they had long term negative impacts. The migrants viewed the GHV as symbolic objects, which were used not simply as a platform for the text and images, but in itself were part of the discourse of policing. The meaning of symbolic objects is derived not only from the intention of the ‘author’, but also from what the ‘reader’ brings to it (Yanow, 2000, p.17).

The meaning emerges out of the interaction between author, text and reader, but is not a ‘given’. For migrants, the GHV conveyed meanings about exclusion, powerlessness and difference (Lowndes and Madziva, 2016). The particular experience of R11, reflects that material which was not directed at her, nonetheless had the role of a symbolic object and therefore impacted her significantly.

The third woman, R16, who had youths shouting ‘Heil Hitler’ out of the car at her and her husband described:

That was terrifying. You can’t understand it. There wasn’t anything I could do, because they were in a car. But it does make your heart

178 pump and it sends a hiver of dread. Not only because of its connotations and associations but because we are in the streets of London in broad daylight. (R16)

In the recent incident of hostility which R16 experienced in a children’s soft play, she described:

There was a real level of fear and anxiety, being with 2 kids and embarrassed. It was a feeling of what I could imagine so many of what our people had felt on a much larger scale, the feeling of being singled out and treated differently. And it also gave me the perspective that we are different. Can we ever really feel part of society, can we actually ever feel that we can integrate? Those were the kind of questions which came up. (R16)

The above instances show that it was not only the victims of the physical assaults who were significantly impacted, but also vulnerable women who were victimised to a lesser degree. This data is consistent with the research of

Ferraro and LaGrange (1987) which shows that women report higher levels of fear than men and are more likely to perceive certain situations as dangerous.

Some researchers have ascribed the difference in the level of fear between genders, to women having a tendency to overreact, and to overplay the levels of fear (Braungart et. al., 1980).

It seemed that, overall, the level of fear among female respondents was higher, despite them being subjected to less severe victimisation. One might expect that people who suffer more crime, also experience more fear. But that has rarely been proven. As referenced in the literature review, research on fear of crime reflects that there are instances whereby individuals fear crime even though they had not been victims of crime (Prieto and Bishop, 2016a). Prieto and Bishop (2016b) highlight that the majority of the population does not suffer any crime and yet that the fear of crime is more frequent than crime itself. Fear

179 of crime is therefore based on complex social dynamics which is not dependent on being victimised.

The immediate responses which respondents related varied in degree. But these responses were based on a myriad of factors such as the frequency of victimisation, the seriousness of the victimisation, the time elapsed in the retelling of the incident and the possibility of the victimisation reoccurring. These characterises were important in the way people talked about their incidents and their responses to the incident. I found that characteristics were not necessarily linear though: that there was no link between the severity of the criminality and the immediate response which followed. Some participants who faced more severe antisemitic incidents, were less emotionally responsive and vice versa.

For instance, R20 (who was nearly killed) almost marginalised the incident whereas R16 (who was the mother in the soft play) was distraught. However, I only considered these characteristics retrospectively, after the interviews had been conducted. It was something which I did not consider prior to conducting the interviews and it was through the data collection that these categories came to light. Further research would benefit from examining these characteristics of the offences in more detail.

The fact that there is no apparent link between the level of criminality and the immediate response, resonates with the theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism, as these emotional responses by the women illustrate the way particular respondents make sense of antisemitism based on their interpretation and meaning which they give to these incidents.

180 b. Separation and Isolation

Another emotional response, which immediately followed an antisemitic incident, was feeling a sense of separation and isolation from mainstream society. Whilst the experiences of R15 did not provoke feelings of fear within her, it stirred within her feelings of disappointment and frustration, as she felt that after all the years of working with the local council, the relationship, trust and sense of goodwill had deteriorated. The very fact that R15 had a direct relationship with the local council meant that the discrimination is particularly hurtful. She stated:

In my agenda, one item says what is your relationship with the local council and I’ve stopped saying what it isn’t. Because it’s just isn’t there anymore. I mean, I just don’t have a relationship with the local council… it’s astonishing after so many years. (R15)

R3, the university student in film school described feeling:

Very uncomfortable… whenever there was a project I felt like everyone grouped up and I was left not having a group and it was the teacher who allocated me to a group. I felt like I was in primary school, the unpopular kid. And even at lunch, I would go into my car and drive all the way back home, just to drive back, just because I didn’t have anywhere else to go. So yes, it was very uncomfortable. (R3)

R9, the university student who shouted out the answer in the lecture hall said:

I felt embarrassed… Just sort of felt awkward, just really out of place. Before hand, I felt like a student within a room, and now I felt like the Jew within a room of non-Jews. Because a label was thrown out. (R9)

For these three respondents, these incidents seemed to have created a sense of separation and isolation from main stream society. A sense of estrangement.

These instances are in line with Sweiry’s research (2014) who described that the emotional impacts were extremely significant’ (2014, p.175). Sweiry (2014) also highlights that feelings of isolation and exclusion appeared to be far more

181 significant to those who were more integrated into mainstream society. Unlike

Sweiry’s sample, which included secular Jews, only a small number of participants in my study had social dealings outside their community, which may account for the limited instances of separation and isolation.

The social closeness of work colleagues and lecturers was a noteworthy feature in making the impacts of discrimination and prejudicial attitudes more distinct.

Hate incidents reported were often one-off incidents with the perpetrators unknown. Incidents of discrimination on the other hand were often prolonged due to the social closeness of fellow colleagues or fellow students or employers.

These moments of discrimination arose during an interaction at work or in university. Therefore, the emotional responses in these instances not only highlighted similar feelings to those victims of hate incidents, it also extended to disappointment of the failed personal relationship, making the impact of discrimination more distinct.

c. Acceptance or Normalisation

The most evident immediate response following an antisemitic incident was for antisemitism to be seen as a normative part of everyday lived experiences. The most marked immediate response was to ‘normalise’ the incident. Previous literature on victimisation of hate crime have used the term ‘normalisation’ to endorse the notion that certain victims tend to normalise the hate crime (Sweiry,

2014; Zempi, 2014). Drawing on this previous usage of this term, I used this term to mean the presumption that some level of hostility is inevitable and that

‘low level’ hostility is accepted in the lives of Orthodox Jews. The response of normalisation continues to appear throughout the analysis. Respondents

182 normalised the incident in the immediate aftermath, but they also normalised the incident as a long-term coping mechanism. Normalisation therefore, will also be discussed in subsection 6.2 as the main coping strategy adopted in managing the victimisation (chapter of coping mechanism).

A significant number of respondents accepted the victimisation as part of day- to-day. One expressed that due to the sheer number of abuse which he faces, being targeted has become a way of life (R19). Others, who are less frequently targeted, chose not to ‘make a big deal’ out of it and have not given much importance to it (R1, R24, R13). There was an acknowledgement that the targeting is ‘part of being Jewish’ and this is ‘our life’ (R13, R11). No obvious patterns could be drawn regarding the respondents who normalised their incidents; this process of normalisation span across age and gender. By avoiding confronting their emotions and by denying the extent of the victimisation, the respondents allowed themselves to regain control over their lives.

Even among the incidents which resulted in the need for hospitalisation and which those had some lasting physical effects, this pattern of normalisation was similarly repeated. R12 who was attacked by men wearing balaclavas, described that on the whole the incident was

A nuisance more than anything else. I had a week off work, but I wanted to drive to get to Shul and to go to places, but I wasn’t allowed to drive in case of concussion. It was a nuisance more than anything else. (R12)

These responses reflect the apparent ease with which some incidents were dismissed. This seemingly unperturbed attitude of R12 was reiterated in the

183 incident of discrimination he encountered, whereby he described his identity as a Jew possibly costing his job. R12 adopted a ‘move on’ approach:

I know that some people would get upset and say that it’s discrimination etc. etc. I am philosophical about it. My philosophy is that if it’s going to be an issue, it’s not somewhere where I want to work. (R12)

We see here the sheer manner which he effortlessly dismissed yet another incident. R12 continued to explain:

At the end of the day, I need to get on with my life. Part of me thinks, why should I allow them to control my life and dictate how I live. I got attacked on the street. Ok, it can happen to anybody. It happens all the time, people get robbed, people get mugged. People get attacked. It happens. Stuff happens to you in life. (R12)

R12 continued to be brazen: ‘someone reported that his incident shook his entire feeling of safety, but it didn’t create the unsafe feelings by me’. In my position as a researcher, I found it quite perplexing to hear his responses. I felt that his responses were not consistent with the severity of the physical attack and I was expecting him to feel, on some level, disturbed by the incident.

Perhaps R12 sensed my level of discomfort and continued to say:

There was only one time that I was nervous afterwards. It was cold and it was dark in Golders Green, I noticed to see a man wearing a balaclava standing in the corner of the road. It was early in the morning. (R12)

This was the only moment R12 expressed any vulnerability during the interview.

He swiftly moved away from these feelings and said: ‘Not sure why I was nervous, he was probably just waiting for someone to pick him up…I just got on with my life’.

In a similar way to avoiding confronting the emotions that antisemitic incidents might have elicited by normalising the incident, some respondents referred to

184 their experiences with humour. R18, whose husband’s coat was set alight, said, whilst laughing, that she did not feel effected and that in fact the incident ‘added some spice to our life’. R22, who was present in the pharmacy when the couple made a comment that if they allow Jews, they should allow dogs into the pharmacy, said in a guilty tone: ‘Is it wrong to say it was quite funny. It’s like what?! Who do you think you are? I can’t really believe it happened. It’s a bit cringe funny’.

Finally, by way of avoiding to express vulnerability or in order to confront the emotions that might have been elicited, certain participants provided a justification or limited the locality of potential crime. I will discuss this in more detail in section 5.3, subsection 5. R8, who was travelling on a train from

Newcastle to London when he was abused, confined the abuse to a particular location, thereby limiting the opportunity for recurrence. R8 stated:

To me that incident was classic Northern…And I don’t live in Newcastle, if I lived in Newcastle, maybe it would have an effect on me. In London, living around here, no. The only effect it had on me, is that if I had to travel back from Newcastle...I would probably be a bit nervous…Anybody living in Gateshead takes it for granted that they will be beaten up at some point in their lives. This is their reality. (R8)

The disposition to dismiss the abuse, to treat it as a laughing matter, or to limit the locality of potential crime, needs to be questioned. It is questionable whether this normalisation of the incidents was genuine, or whether these responses were adopted by various respondents in order to avoid confronting their true emotions, so as to be able to withstand these challenges. It is arguable that these responses were used to mask their underlying feelings of fear and concern which these incidents had evoked. Robert Merton’s Strain Theory

(Merton, 1938) can be referred to here. Merton designed deviant behaviour

185 typology which outlined the possible divergences between culturally defined goals and the institutionalised means available to achieve these goals. Once someone feels this strain, there are a handful of ways that the strain could be dealt with. One of the ways one can react to the strain, in Merton’s terms, is by

‘conforming’. This means that the person accepts both the goals and the means of society and continues with his / her life. In my position as a researcher, I feel that that is what the respondents had done here; they had used their agency to normalise these incidents in order to avoid confronting their true emotions.

It is interesting to note that even the participants who used more piercing terminology in the immediate aftermath of the incident (as described above), swiftly came to resolve these occurrences as common features in lives of Jews.

R20, who faced near death experienced, remarked: ‘Initially, at the time, I was obviously quite shaken up...but I got better so quickly’. R12, who was attacked by men wearing balaclavas, commented: ‘It was scary at the time… but at the end of the day, I need to get on with my life’. Finally, R19 described feeling ‘very shocked and scared’ at the time the gas canisters were thrown at him but ‘it does tend to go away’. They transitioned from feelings of fear or anger to acceptance. They did not hold onto those frightened feelings for very long.

Contradictions in the data were apparent in R8’s interview. He initially related his incident on the train as feeling that he was in ‘Kristallnacht’. He described pretending not to speak English and not to know what was happening. He attempted to be invisible in this instance. However, he moved away from this victimisation in interview and said that this incident ‘had not effected him’. This play of the emotions illustrates that respondents reacted to this strain by

186 accepting this abuse, so as to be able to function on day-to-day. This example illustrates that these antisemitic instances evoked quite entangled emotions, which were more comfortably negated by dismissing the incidents as inevitable.

The reality is that these subsections of emotional responses are interconnected. We can think of these subsections as separate, but in practice they overlap. This is the process of victimisation (Spalek, 2017). The way people make sense of their incidents is part of the process of victimisation.

Many respondents initially expressed great concern, fear and anxiety but subsequently continued to normalise these instances. They seemed to lack clarity about which feelings they wanted to associate themselves with, but ultimately resolved to dismiss the incidents as inevitable.

d. Immediate response to vicarious victimisation

It is important to briefly comment on the immediate responses of those who were victimised vicariously. The literature suggests that witnessing victimisation may have some of the same adverse effects as personally experiencing victimisation (Kulkarni et al., 2011). The findings of Brown (2016) also shows that the feelings of anger, threat and anxiety which vicarious victims felt were almost on par with those who were directly or personally victimised. Vicarious victimisation may also lead individuals to suspect that they will be subjected to the same victimisation in the future (Agnew, 2002). Interestingly, only one participant, R11, commented that her brother’s incident ‘at the time, it did have some impact on me’. Other participants in interview reflected on other people’s incidents but did so in a factual manner; there was very little emotion involved in describing the incidents. This puts into question the idea, discussed in the

187 literature review, that hate crimes are ‘message crimes’ which intend to send a message and effect the community as a whole, and do not only impinge on the victim alone (McDevitt, 1993). This notion does not resonate within my data.

Perhaps, as participants have managed to normalise their own personal incidents, so too, they were able to normalise others’ incidents as well.

4.5 Conclusion

This chapter has addressed research question 1 and has yielded an overall view of the types of antisemitic incidents which Orthodox Jewish in my sample endure as well as their immediate response to the victimisation. There are several short conclusions to set out here.

First, the chapter showed that while incidents varied in degree and extent, the prevalence of the victimisation often forms part of the day-to-day lives of

Orthodox Jews. Second, this chapter highlights that each respondent gave meaning and made sense of their responses to these various incidents in diverse ways. All five categories of antisemitism triggered some response on the part of victims. As shown however, there is no direct link between severity of these incidents and their respective immediate emotional responses. Certain incidents were extremely violent and yet the participants dismissed the incidents as the norm, whereas other incidents may be perceived as rather minimal in severity, and yet left a deep emotional response for the participants.

Third, whilst the incident evoked quite a complex range of emotions, this chapter illuminated that on the whole, the so-called low-level abuse, had become normalised for both the frequent as well as the infrequent victims.

188 The following chapter will explore the extent to which these incidents and their immediate response had shaped the respondents’ perceptions of antisemitism and their level of security, living as British Jews in London. Following on from there, the subsequent chapter will examine the respondents’ coping mechanisms they had adopted to manage these challenges.

189 CHAPTER 5: PERCEPTIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

5.1 Introduction

Based on my sample, this chapter will aim to answer the second research question of ‘what are the perceptions held by Orthodox Jews in London on antisemitism?’ In addressing this research question, the perceptions expressed herein by individuals as well as participants from focus group, will assist in elucidating whether the Orthodox Jewish community is cognisant of the resurgence of antisemitism, whether anxiety levels are rising among the community and whether the time has come to reconsider whether life in Britain is a wise choice.

For the purposes of this analysis, the word ‘perceptions’ was defined as the respondents’ views or understanding of antisemitism. I have been more reflective and broader in defining perceptions – the definition is based on the respondents’ reflection on the phenomenon. This chapter will first explore the respondents’ perceptions of the scale and significance of antisemitism, in particular whether respondents felt safe living as Orthodox Jews in Britain or whether they sensed that antisemitism is on the rise. The second section that this chapter will discuss, are the factors which contribute to these perceptions.

This chapter will reveal that incidents which interviewees were subjected to were not the main contributory factor to forming particular perceptions. There were various underlying factors which shaped their outlook, which will be explored in turn. There were seven underpinning factors which influenced their perceptions in assessing antisemitism. Respondents assessed events of antisemitism in the context of the historical and religious context, the ‘new antisemitism’, the location, the heightened security measures, support from

190 externals, as well as their personal incidents. Antisemitism, in the areas chosen in London, cannot be seen in a vacuum, but rather as part of a whole and this context will be set out.

5.2 Perceptions about the scale and significance of antisemitism

The outlook and beliefs about the scale and significance of antisemitism was examined during interviews. Orthodox Jews varied in their perceptions of the prevalence of antisemitism. Their perceptions ranged from respondents feeling secure to a middle ground, where respondent felt that the status quo of antisemitism has not changed and to the more pronounced belief that antisemitism has become a serious issue in the lives of Orthodox Jews. I have outlined, in the diagram below, the different perceptions, rising in intensity. Also, note in the diagram, the seven underpinning factors which influenced their perceptions.

The analysis below will echo the overall findings of the JPR survey (2014), referred to in the literature review, which showed that perceptions of antisemitism were split among Jews in the UK. Findings of the JPR surveys

(2014) concluded that approximately half of respondents maintained that it is at least ‘a fairly big problem’ but an almost identical proportion expressed that it is

‘not a very big problem’.

In analysing their perceptions of antisemitism, I will start by reviewing responses of those who seemed least effected and work upwards in intensity level. In accordance with the theoretical framework of this thesis, the meaning

191 that the respondents gave to the actual or perceived resurgence of antisemitism, varied.

192

193 1. Fairly secure

In answering what are the perceptions of antisemitism, one of the topics which was frequently raised by respondents was whether antisemitism is effecting them on a day-to-day basis. On the least concerned end of the scale, were the number of respondents who felt that there is antisemitism in London, but that they are personally not effected by it on a day-to-day basis. This section needs to be prefaced with the understanding that all participants expressed that there is some level of antisemitism.

One participant expressed: ‘I don’t feel like it’s a particular issue. I don’t really feel that it’s been on the rise in the last several years’. (R12). R22 expressed that ‘statistically it’s shown that it’s risen, but personally I don’t feel it’. R27 echoed these views: ‘There is antisemitism. You can see it. You can feel it…

It’s not something that is effecting our lives daily. We can go about our lives doing what we need to do’. Another respondent said: ‘I don’t feel that there is antisemitism. I am not denying it, I just don’t feel it’ (R8).

R24 surmised that ‘on a day-to day basis, especially in a professional life you don’t encounter it at all. People are after business networking, they are after living good with people, society is very tolerant’. FG17, accented the freedom that Jews enjoy in the UK: ‘We can go anywhere, we can do anything, we can act in a free (way), express ourselves as Jews fully and clearly’. These comments cannot be taken at face value. Perhaps saying that antisemitism does not impact them in their day-to-day lives, comes from fear of uttering it and fear that it would become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

194 There were those who, despite being fully aware that reported incidents or communal statistics reflect an increase in antisemitic incidents, were not personally effected. For instance, a respondent from NW London stated:

Well it (antisemitism) is there, definitely. Personally, I don’t see it as often as I see it reported… But personally, I very rarely see anything around here…maybe round here it’s just less pronounced. (R17)

These views expressed by respondents resonate with the findings of JPR

(2014) which highlighted that 84% of participants believe antisemitism to be an issue in the UK, but not one which impacts them in their day-to day lives (JPR,

2014, p.13).

Similarly, respondents discussed the sense of security within the Orthodox community. Several respondents expressed that there is no sense of fear among the Orthodox Jewish community. ‘I don’t think that the issue smacks them in the face on a day to day basis’ (R24), ‘I think we are living in quite a good time’ (R25), ‘If anything, in the last 10 years, people feel very confident and very safe’ (R26). ‘People feel comfortable in this country. After, with or without all the problems that might be coming up, it’s still a very tolerant society by comparison to other societies’ (R24), ‘I don’t feel scared to go out’ (R22), ‘I don’t feel threatened on a daily basis. I am not afraid’ (R25), or ‘I am quite comfortable to let him (my son) around the streets of Stamford Hill’ (R28).

This data is congruent with the survey conducted by FRA (2013) whereby relative to other EU countries, levels of anxiety were much lower among British

Jewry (FRA, 2013). A large proportion of respondents (47%) felt that

‘antisemitism was not a big problem’ (FRA 2013, p.16). Rather, respondents

195 felt that there were more pressing issues to contend with (such as unemployment and the state of the economy) (FRA, 2013, p.18).

Most respondents were aware that there is a rise in antisemitic incidents. Yet, levels of anxiety remained low. How can this be explained? I propose that these responses are in line with studies which have shown that religious involvement can reduce fear of crime (Matthews et.al., 2011). Research has shown that being religious, is a blanket, a safety net which can dampen anxiety levels. This will be discussed in the following chapter (6.2a).

A number of other themes emerged from this data. Both males and females alike were cognisant that antisemitism was in existence, yet that it was not effecting them on a daily basis. This was incongruous with existing literature mentioned in the previous chapter of Ferraro and LaGrange (1987), which showed that women report higher levels of fear. We can deduce from this that whilst some Orthodox Jewish women were significantly impacted immediately following their victimisation, those feelings have subsided and over time their general perceptions align with general perceptions of men.

A further observation which is evident is that it was the younger or the middle aged respondents (25-45) who accentuated their sense of security within the

UK. This conflicts with the research of Ferraro and LaGrange (1987), which highlights that older people have lower levels of fear.

Some respondents confined the offenders to a certain type. By doing so, they create a greater sense of safety. For instance, R23, a female respondent from

196 Stamford Hill, felt that on the whole, the middle-aged people ‘respect us. The only ones I would say so is with the young ones. You know the school children’.

She continued to state, ‘I don’t get frightened by that. I just consider it to be young silly boys – I don’t see a powerful figure behind it’ (R23). In fact, the CST

(CST Antisemitic Incidents Jan-June 2017) reported that in only 22% of incidents, the offenders were minors. The large majority of them were adults.

Nonetheless, by mentally limiting the offenders to younger children, the extent of potential harm is also limited.

Several contradictions were apparent within the data. For instance, R11 initially commented that antisemitism ‘is not something that I am aware of on a daily basis, (on a daily basis I am not) scared of antisemitism’. She did not stop there though. R11 continued to state ‘but I do wonder whether it’s the direction demographically that the country is going in’ (R11). Herein we see that whilst antisemitism does not affect her personally, it is an issue which troubles her on a larger scale, fearing that it would grow exponentially. There were also contradictions in the responses of R26. Initially R26 said: ‘now you see at 12 o’clock at night, you would see girls, chatting on the corners of the street during summer holidays or school holidays. Zero fear’. R26 highlighted that circumstances have changed for the better, that Jewish residents are feeling safer on the streets of Stamford Hill and allowances which are now made, would not have been made 10 years ago; implying much higher comfort levels.

However, R26 continued to state ‘and that worries me a little bit because they are so not careful’. This contradiction highlights that he himself is not feeling reassured that it is safe for the girls to be meeting at midnight on the streets.

197 These contradictions in my sample highlight that at the outset, it seems that overall, Orthodox Jewry in both neighbourhoods are comfortable in the UK on a day-to-day basis. This however, should not be mistaken with an overall sense of security. Some of the respondents who expressed not being effected by antisemitism on a daily basis, were cognisant that they are not immune from attack. That whilst they are living outwardly care-free lives, there is nonetheless a realisation that things could change.

2. Deflecting insecurity

When asked about perceptions of antisemitism, some respondents found it difficult to reconcile whether there was an increase in antisemitism or whether the increased threat was global, which would imply that potentially everyone is at risk of being attacked.

R8 did not perceive antisemitic victimisation to be distinct from any other minority victimisation. He described: ‘I see it as something that happens to any minority… I wouldn’t think that it’s any worse than what black or gay people need to endure. I don’t see this worse than anybody else’ (R8). R17 began by stating that ‘there is more antisemitism probably’. However, he continued to

‘justify’ this increase in saying: ‘but there has been more of a rise in general hate in every direction probably as well’ (R17). Participants in the focus group agreed: ‘I don’t think you can look at antisemitism outside the contexts of all that is going on in the world’ (FG11). ‘(It) could be antisemitism, casual antisemitism, but it could just be xenophobia – and anybody who is different is targeted and people who are dressed differently could be easily targeted’

(FG11). FG13 commented:

198 There is an increased fear. But that is not necessarily an increased fear as a result of antisemitism. It may be an increased fear as a result of world events which may lead to an attack…That is based on a sense of global insecurity and just as the House of Parliament might be vulnerable to attacks, so would Jewish communities. (FG13)

By rationalising the threat as global, respondents were deflecting their feelings of insecurity. They rationalised the threat as being targeted to all members of society, rather than to them specifically for being Jewish.

A number of respondents specified who they felt were the main perpetrators of hate globally:

I think however that there is a bigger issue before antisemitism and that is the threat of Islamic terrorist to the western world and to Jews. So at any one time you are not going to have extremist Islamic terrorist and antisemitism all at the same time. You are more likely to face threat of Islamic extremist and for people to be preoccupied with that issue perhaps more so than with antisemitism. (R21)

The perception now is a world-wide feeling that Muslims are anti- western and that they don’t care if the guy may kill other Muslim people as he is driving the lorry into them. He is making a statement to the Western world. That’s the feeling that people have. The perception now is that Muslims are against the whole world. (FG4)

The respondents’ views align with the findings of the JPR (2014) which found that a significantly larger proportion of respondents (66%) perceived that general racism is more of a problem than antisemitism (48%).

Certain observations can be made regarding this perception. The first observation is that respondents were aware that other minorities are exposed to victimisation; drawing on Perry’s work (2001) of ‘doing difference’ they note the vulnerability associated with being different. By placing antisemitic targeting

199 under the heading of xenophobia or global insecurity, if everyone is a potential target, respondents were limiting the personal element of these offences and almost legitimising the victimisation as being natural and random. It is a way of rationalising the threat.

This oscillation between global and local discourse of feeling secure was apparent. This will be discussed in more detail in section 5.3, subsection 5 on spatial dimensions. Their perceptions seemed to suggest that the more insecurity there is on a global level, the more security at the local level. They used this rationalisation as a way of displacement of their fears.

By categorising the possible threat as a general threat to everyone, rather than specifically to Jews, the levels of anxiety and overall fear might be reduced.

Neusner (2003) commented that:

In days gone by, the “Jewish Problem” belonged to Jews alone. Whether we lived or died was our problem. But now the problem of life or death faces all mankind; we are no longer singled out for extermination. The terror is everyone’s. (2003, p.69)

There was no distinctive patterns among men and women. Given that Orthodox

Jews are targeted because of their public visibility as Jews, it is surprising that some Orthodox Jewish males sought comfort in believing that an attack is simply random victimisation. One would have assumed, that because of their public visibility as Jewish males (over and above women), they would regard their victimisation as nothing other than an attack on their Jewish identity.

Nonetheless some males sought comfort in considering the victimisation to be global. This too, is a way of deflecting insecurity and rationalising it as random victimisation.

200

A further theme which emerged was that various focus groups participants, whilst regarding the general unrest as being global, maintained that nonetheless, the Jewish community would be the first to be targeted. ‘They are so closely interlinked; I am not sure exactly how they divide. I suspect there is a feeling that we, as a visible community, have become more vulnerable to an attack by an extremist group’ (FG13). ‘We will be the first target. Like in India, a few years ago, they found the little Chabad house in the complex slum and they attacked the tiny little floor apartment’ (FG4). FG1 agreed:

We are concerned because we are British citizens but we know historically that they will probably go for us first. As we see in France, as we see in India, they generally do. They will go to others as well, but there a higher percentage, as we see round the globe at the moment, that they will come to us first. Jews are serious targets. (FG1)

Therefore, there was a sense that there is global insecurity in general but that due to the weight of the Jewish historical heritage, Jews are more vulnerable.

In general, the moment respondents perceive the threat as an overall threat to a group on a broader scale, not an individual threat, everyone within society is a possible target. By categorising the possible threat as global, they managed to deflect insecurity and use it as a way to curtail their fears.

3. Precarious safety

A separation has to be made between the levels of safety respondents feel on a day to day level, which is overall high, and fear of future victimisation, which is overall more articulated. On the whole, respondents felt rather secure living as Orthodox Jews in London. However, many respondents did not feel

201 complacent and expressed a knowing that anything could change. By way of example, R28 expressed that on the one hand, the Jewish community is very settled as they are opening more shops, they are running businesses and on the Shabbos many of the shops are closed, allowing them to feel the sanctity of the day. But on the other hand, and despite these feelings of being settled,

R28 described sensing ‘every day a fear of attack’ specifically because he is

Jewish. This interplay between feelings safe and secure, and yet being fragile to its precarious nature, was a common theme.

Concern and unease were sentiments expressed by many; the notion that antisemitism is dormant – waiting to erupt. R11 expressed:

It’s not something that I am aware of on a daily basis, being scared of antisemitism. But I do wonder whether it’s the direction, demographically, that the country is going in…I think it’s inertia - like the lobster in the pot. When you put it in, it does not notice, it just gets warmer and warmer. (R11)

Such statements repeated time and time again: ‘I don’t think there has been anything specific here but we live in an atmosphere that we expect anything to happen now anytime’ (FG3), ‘I think that antisemitism is a serious problem, it is something which is there but you can’t see it. When you speak to people, they won’t tell you. But it can come out sometimes’ (R5). R8 realised that even though at present, he feels secure, the future could present a turn of events.

He based it on the fact that Jews had historically been ‘kicked out of this country once before. So, there is no reason why it won’t happen here’. Another respondent commented that ‘we live in good times’ but acknowledged that

‘everything can change in a minute. I definitely think there is a hatred’ (R25).

He stated that even though he is not thinking about it on a daily basis, he is

‘definitely sure that things can change’ (R25).

202

These respondents acknowledged that things could take a turn for the worse.

This implies that they live in an uncertain state of being; that their security is precarious. They feel somewhat comfortable, but question how long this feeling of security would last for and what event would take place for this security to come crushing down. They are aware that this sense of safety is volatile and not to be trusted.

R24 stated that ‘I think more people are just going about their life, and not thinking about it. I don’t think that the issue smacks them in the face on a day- to-day basis’. R24 explained that in order to create a tolerant society, it is important for Jews to manage to ignore any antisemitism and that it is important that they supress their fears. However, R24 was fully aware of the fact that this false sense of security can change, specifically at times of war and at times when people are struggling financially. R24 continued:

But we must remember that the way things are, is an illusion. And it’s true, Jews in Germany felt very comfortable until 10 years before the war, until 1933, people felt incredibly safe and comfortable in Berlin, that kind of feeling cannot be confused with real safety. That’s been throughout history…(R24)

The Holocaust and the historical context of antisemitism have played a central role in framing both personal perceptions and gauging the extent of the phenomenon today. I intend to discuss these topics at length in section 5.3.

The Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Efraim Mirwis, in oral evidence given on the 14th July

2016 to the Home Affairs Committee, in preparation of the 2016-2017 report on antisemitism, echoed that overall, British Jews are happy to be living in the UK.

But that within this context, the problem of antisemitism, which used to be

203 smaller, is now getting bigger. ‘And it could get bigger and bigger, unless we deal with it effectively’. (Home Affairs Committee, 2016, Q397).

Overall, among many of the respondents there seemed to be a heightened sense of vulnerability despite seemingly comfortable levels of security. This was largely based on historical events which showed that attaining levels of comfort were precarious and untrustworthy.

4. Spheres of insecurity

Many respondents were of the view that antisemitism is not on the rise, but that there has been a shift in its expression, and that antisemitism has become more blatant. R15 described antisemitism as a constant, as an inevitable phenomenon. She stated that ‘it’s not a question of rise, because I believe there has always been antisemitism. It’s a phenomenon like the sun shines in the day and moon by night’. However, she described it changing its texture and becoming more open. She felt that this carte blanche to express antisemitic sentiments has extended to politicians.

One interviewee commented: ‘I don’t think there is a rise. I think there is a rise in overt…I’ve lived with it all my life. It’s not a surprise to me. It has just changed’

(R14). FG17 agreed with this perception that antisemitic prejudices are now more freely expressed. Boundaries which have previously not been traversed, are now being crossed.

There is an oscillation between freedom of speech and expressions of hate.

Freedom of speech can come under the guise of social justice. But when

204 freedom of speech is abused it can become incriminatory. ‘The overwhelming focus…is on the balancing of freedom of speech with other rights explicitly framed within a human rights perspective’ (Chakraborti and Garland, 2014, p.158). There is a balancing of competing rights and interests.

Many respondents were of the view that certain spheres of insecurity have emerged. Respondents were aware that antisemitism has become more overt and blatant, particularly within four spheres: the media, the Labour party, on campus and the type of perpetrators and violence Jews are subjected to. These spheres are inextricably linked. It is the media which determines what messages they wish to convey. The media would in turn influence people’s perceptions of who Mr. Corbyn is, as well as the levels of antisemitism taking place on campus. Therefore, the spheres are linked and need to be read as a whole.

For the respondents, these blatant expressions of antisemitism within these spheres are insidious attempts to reinforce the pre-existing antisemitic sentiments. These were spheres that respondents felt were places that antisemitic rhetoric has become more overt and has the capacity to disseminate widely. It ought to be accentuated at this juncture that this study did not attempt to test the rise of antisemitism within these spheres, but aimed to recount the respondents’ perceptions, be it right or misguided. This study is about the way the Orthodox Jewish community perceived levels of antisemitism. I will now turn to discuss each in turn.

i. Media

205 At the time of writing this research (and as referenced in the introduction) antisemitism was ripe within the media. As referenced in the literature review, social media has increasingly become a platform for antisemitic rhetoric. This widespread increased expression of antisemitism within the media, was a dominant feature within the data, with reference to the disproportionate focus on Israel in some of the media (Gidley, 2014). Over the past four years, antisemitic rhetoric has intensified to an even greater extent in the media. The analysis was saturated with reference to both the discourse of antisemitism within the media and the Labour party. This is consistent with the JPR survey

(2014), which highlighted that Jews in Britain today believe antisemitism in the media to be one of the most problematic forms (p.36). CST recorded 163 antisemitic incidents that took place on social media, comprising 22 per cent of the total of 727 incidents recorded during the first half of 2018 (CST, 2018a). In some of these recorded incidents, ‘social media has been used as a tool for coordinated campaigns of antisemitic harassment, threats and abuse directed at Jewish public figures and other individuals’ (CST, 2018a, p.3). Targeted social media campaigns may, at times, involve hundreds or thousands of tweets and images, usually on neo-Nazi websites, the CST would record is at a single incident, even though it would include hundreds of posts.

Of concern to many interviewees was the shift in the expression of antisemitism, particularly within the media: ‘The antisemitism of the past, I’m not saying it disappeared, but if you are looking at the resurgence of antisemitism, the vast majority of it is on social media’ (FG9). RG15 stated:

Certainly, the disturbing parts that antisemitic sentiments have become far more open in the media which is ordinarily worrying…When a thing becomes more open, it becomes more

206 dangerous. So, I am personally very unquiet about it. And that’s the media and that’s the UK as a whole. (R15)

Another respondent stated:

There is a change in antisemitism by the media which never was. Growing up there was graffiti, insults, but now mainstream media, articles in the Times, show that they are much more comfortable to talk about Jewish stereotypes. There is more intellectual antisemitism. (FG7)

This respondent felt that antisemitism in the media is now expressed by the middle and upper classes.

A few respondents described that antisemitism is most blatant in the media.

R13 said:

It’s all about the news. It’s a combination of irrational negativity towards Israel that has got to the point that it’s no longer just the BBC, the prejudice has gone much deeper than that and it’s a feeling of the whole Israel situation completely misunderstood, history being rewritten. (R13)

The superintendents supported the contention that antisemitism is most widespread within social media. FG9 stated:

And I will tell you the reason for it. The traditional antisemitism has always been and will always be in the background and will effect certain religious communities more than others. The knocking off the hats, physical assaults, all of that has always gone on and will always go on. From my perspective has increased because of the increase in antisemitism that has spilt from social media, that that in turn increases the traditional form of antisemitism. (FG9)

FG10 agreed:

I think people feel that bizarrely they can have bigger impact in a space that they don’t actually have physical contact…The people who are traditionally committing the assaults, the offences, are incited by social media, are inspired by social media and in some cases, advertise their doing on social media. (FG10)

207 An emerging theme was, that whilst respondents were not direct targets of antisemitism, the discourse of antisemitism within the media nonetheless effected them:

People do not personally feel antisemitism as part of their day to day lives. Politically yes. If they became a little bit political, then yes. They do feel that comments are made openly in the media that they would not have heard before. And that effects the person personally. (R15)

Personally, I couldn’t say that I had these experiences, but obviously I hear the media and I hear from people around that it’s going to happen. And Israel is the only place to go… (R1)

Another respondent expressed:

Actually, I don’t feel it on a personal level and not on a professional level but so far as one reads the news and one reads about attacks and incidents which has happened, as well as the CST and security measures, so yes I feel that we live in a very dangerous situation. (R2)

Despite these respondents not experiencing any antisemitic incidents personally, the heightened anxiety levels caused by media discourse is apparent herein. This is in line with the research of Haavisto and Petersson

(2013), which highlights that although respondents’ attitudes may not alter as a result of the media, if a particular way of thinking or perspective is repeated tirelessly from various sources, it may affect respondents’ self-image and understanding of the world.

ii. Labour party

The other and linked sphere, which was consistently referred to as there being a noticeable shift, was within the Labour party. As mentioned in the literature review, the Labour party has been the main source of recent allegations of

208 antisemitism associated with political parties and has dominated the national headlines since Mr. Corbyn’s election as leader of the Labour party.

The data shows the concern which respondents have in the levels of antisemitism present within the Labour party. R15, who has been living in this country since she was transported from Nazi Germany as a child, is concerned that antisemitism has shifted from being instigated by some drunken, to it being expressed perpetually by Mr. Corbyn, who is in position of leadership. R2 agreed that antisemitism has always been in existence but that it is ‘starting to rear his head, especially with Corbyn and his gang’ (R2). R11, who felt that although there has always been antisemitism, was particularly upset that a political establishment, which is expected to uphold social values, demonstrates these levels of antisemitic rhetoric. FG8 agreed that the main threat was from the Labour party: ‘But I find it much more insidious when you’ve got establishments doing it… that’s what’s dangerous’ (FG8). F8’s perception was that the main threat was from the Labour party. This thesis did not set out to present this as an uncontested reality. The thesis merely intended to detail their perceptions.

The concern expressed by respondents of the possibility of Mr. Corbyn becoming prime minister, was a reoccurring theme. ‘I think I would feel threatened (if Jeremy Corbyn was elected as leader), I don’t think it’s rational though’ (R11). R15 expressed:

If Corbyn would get in I would feel so uncomfortable that I would pick myself up, leave this country and encourage other people to go. I would just be too afraid. (R15)

209 The timing of this research is apt. It is apparent that the way Orthodox Jews perceive the government has radically transformed in only four years. The research of Sweiry (2014), found that the ‘government provided support rather than presented a threat to Jews’ (Sweiry, 2014, p.258). Moreover, the JPR

(2014) recounted that politics was seen as less of a problem – 65% considered it not to be a very big problem or not a problem at all (JPR, 2014, p.14). The timing of this research must be considered, as this survey was conducted whilst the Conservative party was the governing party, but with respondents being concerned of the possibility of Mr. Corbyn, being elected in the 2022 election

(or possibly sooner) as Prime Minister.

It was clear from this sample that anti-Jewish rhetoric within the Labour party played a significant role in framing perceptions of antisemitism. Respondents were conscious that the main shift in expression of antisemitism is apparent within the media as well as the Labour party, or in other words, that these two spaces have been increasingly accepted as well as used as platforms for antisemitic rhetoric.

The perception of there being a shift in antisemitism manifesting itself in the media as well as the Labour party cannot be taken lightly. For as long as respondents felt that antisemitism was confined to low level criminality experienced during the day-to-day-lives, that can be managed. Now it is perceived to have become institutionalised and stemming from the middle class. My respondents also felt that the volume had increased and that it had become the norm.

210 iii. Campus

Antisemitic discourse on campus was another sphere were respondents felt that there has been a shift in the levels of antisemitism. A report into racist harassment on campuses was published in 2016 by Universities UK, the umbrella group representing university heads. The discussion revealed that ‘on the whole Jewish students have a positive experience of university, but there are situations where Jewish students feel hostility on campus’ (Universities UK,

2016, p.24). In referring to this study, which was co-branded alongside the

Union of Jewish Students, I bear in mind that these types of studies often have their own agenda and are not quite of the same status as academic research.

As discussed in the previous chapter, the Chief Rabbi has highlighted his concerns about the rising of antisemitic expression within campus and expressed specific concerns about the situation faced by Jewish students

(Home Affairs Committee, 2016, Q401). The CST showed a doubling of reporting incidents involving Jewish students and academics, with 41 incidents in 2016, compared with 21 the year before (CST, 2016). NUS survey findings report a similar pattern evident in their recorded incidents against Jewish students. Jewish students had the highest incident rate of targeting, among other religious groups, with 21% of students reporting being victimised (NUS,

2012).

FG11 expressed this noticeable shift in the expression of antisemitism:

The kids on campus, this is anti-Israel, BDS, the environment for them on campus is much more threatening than it ever was. The amount of work the Chaplains have to do, being involved in BDS debate, for which they have won, Daniel Hochauser in UCL… So I think the students on campus feel under siege. (FG11)

211 R9 accented his feelings of isolation on campus:

A lot of the Jews in my uni have just graduated. It’s pretty thin now. I have now made friends with a few Christians and atheists. And a few Muslims. It’s all well and good but the overall feeling is that I am still incredibly isolated, no matter how many more I make. Because at the end of the day, if it hits the fan, are they going to stick up for me? (R9)

These concerned views are consistent with the Universities UK report mentioned above, which found that 26% of Jews in further or higher education were either fairly worried or very worried about being subjected victimised as a result of their religion (Universities UK, 2016, p.27). If we only look back four years, predominant studies on antisemitism did not place any emphasis on antisemitism on campus (JPR, 2014; Sweiry, 2014).

The timing of this research is also pertinent because all this data was collected at a time that the Conservative party’s agenda was on diversity, preventing discrimination and there being freedom of expression in higher education. This was the political context at the time of collecting the data. Yet, antisemitism manifesting itself on campus remained evident within my data.

Campus was another space where antisemitism is becoming more blatantly expressed. Antisemitism used to be confined to street level, the throwing of the eggs, the swearing, but is now manifesting itself within higher education. Lady

Deech cautioned of antisemitism spreading in universities to the Guardian reporter: ‘In the 1920s and 1930s discrimination against Jews started in

German, Austrian and Polish universities, long before the Second World War,’

Lady Deech said. ‘Attacks on Jewish students in universities today should be

212 seen as the canary in the coalmine. It starts there and it spreads’ (The

Guardian, 2017).

iv. Type of perpetrator and type of violence

The final arena where there has been a shift in antisemitism, which is linked to the previous spheres, concern the type of perpetrators as well as the type of violence which Jews may be subjected to. In discussing the shift in perception of who the perpetrators are, FG5 stated that the increase in levels of security is not of fear of ‘council estate’ white lower-class individuals, ‘it is for something far more sinister’ than 35 years ago. R24 agreed and said antisemitism demonstrated by street culture, is on the decline but that institutional antisemitism, ‘from the higher world, from academics and higher society’ is on the rise and is ‘more powerful’. R5 who echoed these thoughts said: ‘you see in universities, in BDS, in the Labour party, all this Anti-Israel activity… It’s on a more intellectual level, rather than played out in the street (R5). These remarks highlight that respondents believe that it is not low-level antisemitism which is on the rise, but the more powerful institutional antisemitism which is on the rise.

Respondents also indicated that there is a shift in the type of violence that Jews may now be subjected to. FG2 reported: ‘People are scared of being knifed on the street. There is a step up in violence in general... what used to be insults is now knife attacks’ (FG2). Respondents commented on there being a shift in wide spread rallies and demonstrations. FG16 said that only a few years ago, there would have been no rallies directed against Jews in NW London. ‘I don’t remember we ever heard or dreamt of such a thing’ (FG16). R14 said it would

213 have been unthinkable some years ago to have these overt antisemitic demonstrations.

In concluding this particular section on the various spheres of insecurity, it is apparent that it is in these four spaces that respondents perceived for there to be a shift. In answering research question 2, the participants who described a shift in these four spaces, expressed that antisemitism has become more overt.

That whilst antisemitism used to be confined to a punch or a spit, it has now shifted to expressions of hostility in the media, within the Labour party, on campus as well the type of perpetrator and violence which one may be subjected to. The political climate which was previously marked by a high degree of tolerance, epitomised by the upper echelons of society, has now changed.

5. Not secure

Moving back to examine where respondents positioned themselves towards antisemitism, some respondents felt that there is an obvious rise in antisemitism and that overall, there is a sense of fear within the Jewish community. The JPR

(2014) survey, found that there is a ‘greater sense of anxiety’ among the

Orthodox (JPR, 2014, p.29). The survey found that ‘a greater degree of religiosity is associated with graver perceptions of antisemitism’ (p.28) meaning that the more religious one is, the more likely he is to be concerned about antisemitism. 62% of Orthodox Jews think that antisemitism is a very big or fairly big problem, versus 45% of non-Orthodox Jews (JPR, p.28).

214 Some respondents were conscious, that in line with communal statistics (CTS,

2017), there is a resurgence of antisemitism and as a result, a heightened sense of fear within the community. ‘Antisemitism is on the rise’ (FG15),

’Definitely. Yes, no question’ (FG14). ‘Well I feel Islamic extreme is on the rise and there is obviously a connection so yes’ (R10), ‘Certainly from my experience it does feel that it’s on the rise’ (R9), ‘There is 100% rise’ (R28), ‘It’s definitely back on. The last few years probably’ (R3), ‘Yes, I think there has been’ (R16), ‘The last ten years has really changed’ (R19), ‘Definitely (it’s on the rise) from my experiences’ (R5), ‘The Jewish community is definitely more effected than they used to be, one hundred percent. Number one, it has increased and number two, it has directly effected more Jews’ (FG9).

These views are in line with the recent survey of JPR (2014) which reported that a clear majority of respondents (nearly 70%) indicated that antisemitism has increased in the past 5 years and over 25% said that it had ‘increased a lot’

(JPR, 2014, p.13).

Alongside perceptions of an increase in antisemitism, a number of respondents felt that there is a heightened sense of fear within the community. The respondents herein felt even more strongly than the respondents who described their safety as being precarious (in subsection 3 above). ‘I don’t want to sound too dramatic to say that I predict something terrible would happen in the UK’ (R15), ‘The future in this country does not look good at all’ (R5), ‘I think there is anxiety’ (R13), ‘I think there is a growing feeling of vulnerability among the community…there is no question that over the last few years that the anxiety of people has grown dramatically’ (FG13), ‘I think that from a conceptual

215 point of view, there is no question, that people feel far less comfortable around

Jewish institutions than they did because of the security threat’ (FG11), ‘The summing up is that whichever way you look at it, we are much more concerned.

We don’t feel as comfortable; you don’t feel as secure’ (FG3).

It was apparent that for some, their own sense of threat was heightened by witnessing the French Jews migrate from France, rather than by personally experiencing any antisemitic incidents. FG2 stated:

But the perceptions around us, of the students and the fear, just seeing the hundreds or thousands of French Jews that are here now, they have left. So, there is an awareness. French Jews are running away from their homes… but there is a clear perception over the last couple of years of a threat. (FG2)

Overall, many respondents sensed that there is a resurgence of antisemitism in London, leading to a greater sense of discomfort among the Orthodox Jewish community.

6. Emigration

On the most anxious end of the scale, would be those who have started to consider emigration. I have classified the consideration to emigrate as a perception, but it will also be discussed as a coping mechanism. The consideration to emigrate may be a reflection that individuals are no longer feeling secure in expressing themselves as Orthodox Jews in Britain. In recent years, there have been unprecedented levels of migration to Israel by French

Jews residing in France (Staetsky, 2017). Exploring this topic during interviews, had revealed that none of the participants had actually resorted to emigrating.

This decision not to emigrate is consistent with the low rates of emigration to

216 Israel (JPR, 2014, pg.7). For example, ‘only 1.5% of Jews in Britain migrated to

Israel between 2001 and 2010’ (JPR, 2014, p.25).

However, opinions varied in relation to whether consideration has been given to the issue of emigration. There were various respondents who do not feel that emigration needs to be a consideration. ‘No, I don’t think at this point, people in

Britain, people would leave. It’s not that major. Like what’s happening in France, that people would leave’ (R17). R1 stated:

I will not leave London because of safety. Not because I am scared of living in London. But I have my friends in Israel saying that I need to move there, that it’s not safe to live in Europe. Like, it’s going to come to London eventually, what are you waiting for? Why are you waiting for it to come? (R1)

Some respondents were cognisant that whilst they were not considering emigration at present, a future incident could trigger off a move. ‘It’s not on the cards at the moment… it will take an event that would make me feel that I cannot stay here’ (R13). R15 recognised that her feelings not to leave can be subjected to change:

Not yet. I would if Corbyn would get in. If Corbyn would get in, I would feel so uncomfortable that I would pick myself up, leave this country and encourage other people to go. I would just be too afraid. Because you see, you don’t know. History has a wicked habit of repeating itself. (R15)

Mr. Corbyn has attracted much attention by the media. R15, who was the most vocal respondents, accentuated that the epitome of threat for her, is Corbyn.

Corbyn, for R15, embodied all evil, because his stature and his perpetual antisemitic sentiments, represent the personification of Hitler, the powerful figure who caused so much evil. R15 would choose to emigrate if any member of the parliament who expresses antisemitic sentiments comes into power; it is

217 not limited to Corbyn per se. Corbyn represents the fear that history will perpetuate itself.

However, other interviewees were aware that some members of the Jewish community have started to deliberate emigration. By way of example FG2 expressed:

I have heard people discussing for the first time whether there is a future in England. In Europe for sure… The perception that Europe in general is over…I think that people are saying at the back of their mind that worse comes to worse, we would move to Israel. (FG2)

I have a very strong feeling that we are going through a stage within my life time which isn’t like any other. So, I do have that feeling. I feel that me, my family, my friends, talk much more about: what would it be that would make me leave the UK. It was never a conversation before. (R13)

I have friends who on a very pragmatic level have said, why are we doing an extension, how long are we going to be in England…there is a very high proportion of young families moving. (R11)

There have been people who would say, the same things happen to us in Paris would happen to us in London, and generally we would up and go. And they would go to Israel. (R21)

This draws on the notion of space and time (a similar idea of space and place will be discussed in section 5.3, subsection 5). Participants were forward- thinking about their safety. Knowing that the possibility of migrating to Israel always presents itself as an option in the future, allowed participants to feel more secure in the present. By assessing their current level of security both in relation to the past and within the options which are available to them in the future, respondents were able to feel safer within their status quo. This is in line with Sparks et al., (2001) who stated that people’s discussions of crime often

218 move ‘from the present, to the remembered past to possible wished-for or threatening futures’ (Sparks et al., 2001, p.887).

Various respondents considered emigration during specific events. For R11, the thought of emigration was most pronounced during the Israel – Gaza conflict:

In that summer, I was thinking this is 1933 Germany, get out when you’ve got a chance… I think that is which way the wind blows. You only need one thing to happen in Israel which would spark it off, I don’t think it’s gone anywhere. And that summer I was thinking, what am I waiting for to go. (R11)

Inconsistencies were apparent in some responses. R24 initially responded that he had not considered emigration ‘No, not at all’. R24 dismissed the idea of leaving the UK and yet, as the interview progressed, he added that his grandfather, who was born to German parents and had escaped the war, advised him to obtain German passports for him and his family ‘because he believes that a Jew should never have one passport. We should always have a backup set of papers, and that kind of view is important to remember’. R24’s application for German passports has recently been accepted. R24 described this as ‘a sobering feeling’. Whilst R24’s initial reaction was to reject the notion of emigration, he was nonetheless taking active steps to be able to leave the

UK should the need arise.

The overall atmosphere, where discourse of emigration is now being discussed, is consistent with JPR (2014) which found that 40% of Orthodox Jews have considered emigrating (p.29). Moreover, the Campaign against Antisemitism

(CAA) commissioned YouGov to conduct a year long research among 10,567

219 British Jews. The research suggested that one in every three Jews had considered leaving Britain in the past two years (CAA, 2017, p.3).

The range of responses among respondents, relating to emigration, is notable.

However, it is evident that there is more discourse on this topic among the community and interviewees would take both historical and political factors into consideration of emigration. This discourse must lead to higher levels of anxiety and apprehension.

In concluding this section, findings from the analysis so far reveal that perceptions were uniformed in that all participants felt that antisemitism was a reality in Britain. However, the extent of the antisemitism and its expression varied in extent. The difficulty in analysing this data is that there was much overlap in respondents’ perceptions. As interviews are not rigid, respondents did not conform to one category alone. They fluctuated in their perception of the extent of antisemitism. The meaning which respondents gave to antisemitism varied with some expressing no sense of threat and others discussing emigration. Nonetheless and overall, the dominant perception among respondents was that antisemitism has always existed, but that it has shifted to becoming more overt. Least prominent was the issue of emigration.

5.3 Contributory factors to respondents’ perceptions

The second section of this chapter will examine the possible factors which influenced the framing of those varied perceptions. What factors have contributed to some respondents feeling that antisemitism was a serious problem and others to feel that it was not?

220 1. Historical context

The Holocaust has been unprecedented in human history and holds a deep imprint in the memory of Jews. It forms a central part in the upbringing of a

Jewish child and in forming the identity of the Jew (Sagi, 2010). In the JPR survey (2014) 20 available choices were given to respondents in assessing their Jewish identity. ‘Remembering the Holocaust’ was ranked second (p.13).

When assessing their own perceptions on antisemitism, a key influence for interviewees was their perception of the Holocaust. Interviewees interpreted current antisemitism against the backdrop of the Holocaust and repeatedly made reference to the Holocaust in assessing contemporary antisemitism. The frequent referencing to the Holocaust, in measuring levels of contemporary antisemitism, was also noted by Sweiry (2014).

The Holocaust has a particular Jewish significance: Jews were murdered because of their Jewishness. Interviewees, in their responses, expressed an awareness and a sensitivity of future victimisation. The Holocaust was not a historical phase in the distant past. It was not something that people delved into only in books. It was personal and real, either because they were children of the Holocaust or because they were the second or third generation of those in the Holocaust.

The attempt to exterminate European Jewry is not far removed from them and therefore those participants will have different experiences of antisemitism at the time of the research. By way of example, R15, who was a child of the

Holocaust stated: ‘I am part of the Holocaust…and to my horror, I see that

221 antisemitism is alive and well’ (R15), ‘I think there is always a sense of fear, given that we all carry personal story, personal stories of persecution; being victims of antisemitism’ (R16), ‘I have felt unsafe just because of our history and being Jewish…and to some extent, we have all experienced it on some very small scale’ (R16). The reference to ‘very small scale’ is an example of the atrocities of the Holocaust used as a measurement of contemporary antisemitism:

I have a lot of baggage…the whole Holocaust business was in my mother’s family. When I was 10, and I got asked in school, I told them my grandparents were gassed in the war. And she jumped up. It’s always been very close to me and I don’t see a way out. (R14)

Many participants normalised the abuse within the historical backdrops. The historical roots of endless persecutions against the Jews spanning over hundreds of years appeared to reinforce the conception within the interviewees that some level of antisemitism was unavoidable. ‘It’s always been there, it’s been around for thousands of years, it’s not going to go away’ (R5), ‘I know that there is history of antisemitism within the world. It’s an issue, it’s a recurring issue that will never go away’ (R8). R2 echoed these thoughts:

Antisemitism started ‘since then’. And it’s never going to stop… They’ve come around since the Holocaust and they have to behave themselves. But deep down, nothing changed. … It’s never going to go away. (R2)

Participants of the focus groups also assessed contemporary antisemitism vis-

à-vis the atrocities of Nazi Germany:

I would put it like this. Baruch Hashem (thank G-d), we are not living in anything which resembles the 1930s…antisemitism among the general population is nowhere in that leagues. (FG17)

It’s not as if we are being put into cattle karts and being shipped off. Someone is just shouting at us. But to be honest even that is

222 unacceptable. In today’s age, 2016, where there is so much on hate crime, it is unacceptable. (FG14)

FG17 shared a story with me. He described that he was in a kosher bakery and a man in his 80s entered. A conversation ensued and the man told FG17 that he grew up in Nazi Germany. When he was five, he ran to the police to inform them that his father was being attacked by the fascists. The police proceeded to take out an iron bar and hit the boy over the head. That was 1933. FG17, in assessing antisemitism today against the atrocities of Nazi Germany said:

‘Baruch Hashem (thank G-d), today we are nowhere near that league’.

A similar theme emerges here to the global and local discourse, which will be discussed in section 5.3, subsection 5. The notion of ‘then’ and ‘now’ appears in the context of Nazi Germany. Security was perceived as being closer in time or further in time. Nazi Germany was considered by respondents as the most insecure time faced by Jews. By comparing their current level of security, to the level of insecurity during Nazi Germany, by pushing that level of criminality back in time and to another place, the levels of security in the present seem higher.

Other respondents expressed no delusion that it could happen again. ‘History has a wicked habit of repeating itself’ (R15). R21 stated:

We all cast our mind back to a period of time where antisemitism became unfortunately the norm across Europe. And I am not naïve enough to think that it cannot happen again. I worry in general that there is potential for antisemitism to rise up again. (R21)

This remark also indicates that participants were holding onto a mixture of secure and insecure feelings simultaneously. Respondents expressed feelings of security regarding living as British Jews in the UK, whilst holding onto feelings

223 of insecurity because this sense of safety is not to be trusted and is tenuous. It shows that one can express feelings of security regarding the present, but feelings of insecurity about the future.

A further theme which emerged was that some of those closer in age to the events of the Holocaust were extremely sensitive to contemporary antisemitism. This is consistent with the findings of JPR (2014) whereby those further away from the Holocaust did not feel that antisemitism needs to be combatted (p.12). One of the clearest observations of this survey is that, within all categories, younger people consider combating antisemitism to be a less important part of their Jewish identity than older people. R22 reported:

I think in the older generation there might be an overall sense of fear…maybe the further away we get from the Holocaust, the more secure we feel about our Judaism… But I think that my parents’ generation is much closer to the whole thing. (R22)

Neusner (2003) contrasts the emotional effects on those who survived Nazi

Germany with the generation which followed. He made a differentiation between the effects of the Holocaust on those who were part of it who would be distrusting and hostile, and the new generation who regard the world as neutral and have the capacity to trust the outside (p.70).

Due to the limited number of Holocaust survivors interviewed, I cannot draw any patterns about perceptions of Holocaust survivors. However, R15, a child of the Holocaust, was the most vocal participant and despite not facing any physical antisemitic incidents herself, felt most cautious living as a Jew in

Britain.

224 The responses of participants suggested that antisemitism cannot be seen in isolation for some, that it is measured and assessed against the backdrop of the Holocaust. Assessing contemporary antisemitism against the backdrop of the Holocaust has two possible implications. Current experiences of physical and verbal assaults now become almost insignificant, when compared to the victimisation which was experienced by Jews during Nazi Germany. This has the effect of lessening the threat of contemporary antisemitism.

However, the Holocaust stands as the backdrop of the need to be cautious and on guard. The sense of comfort which Jews felt in Germany and the fact that

Jews in Europe did not recognise the danger signs, was frequently referred to.

‘Before the war Jews were in love with Berlin, and in love with Germany’ (R26).

R15 stated:

I’m afraid that it was in Germany that people felt most comfortable. Polish Jews before the war moved to Germany because they were very happy there. And the Jewish community, both secular and the orthodox felt very comfortable and had perhaps more rights than anywhere else. And the rest is history. Because it all happened so suddenly. (R15)

Jews in Germany felt very comfortable until 10 years before the war, until 1933, people felt incredible safe and comfortable in Berlin, that kind of feeling cannot be confused with real safety. That’s been throughout history and I don’t think anything can be done about it. (R24)

My grandfather lost his whole family in the camps. We are all survivors. I definitely think that there needs to be an awareness and that we need to be proactive. (R27)

In summarising this section, historic antisemitism needs to be seen as part and parcel of the identity of the Jew. This is in line with the theoretical framework illuminated in this research; that objects surrounding the individuals would shape their identity. In this case, the historical context of Nazi Germany,

225 provided a framework within which antisemitic incidents were often contextualised and by providing a yardstick against which one can measure contemporary antisemitism.

2. Religious Context

Other than the historical context, and to a lesser extent, religious context also provided a factor through which some respondents assessed antisemitism.

Some participants raised the notion that antisemitism was divinely ordained and originates in the Torah. There are two religiously based notions which framed and influenced the perspective of some participants. First, the hostility shown between Esav (Esau) and Yaakov (Jacob) in the Torah. Second, the notion which was referenced from the Torah of galus (diaspora). A Diaspora (galus, exile) is a dispersion, an exile, an unnatural state of being. A central part of

Orthodox Jewry is the notion of galus or exile. Or in other words, that they are temporary residents, who actually belong elsewhere and that with the arrival of the Messiah, they will return to Israel, the spiritual homeland.

These two religiously based notions framed and influenced the perspective of some participants. ‘It doesn’t surprise me. It’s all there in the Chumash (part of the Torah)’ (R14), ‘We are brought up to know that this is Toras Yaakov (the

Torah of Yaakov) and this is going to stick and stay with us forever. So, we have embraced that before it happens. So, when it happens… it happened.’

(FG15). ‘People just accept it (antisemitism). They say we are in galus and this is part of being in galus.’ (FG19)

226 In line with Sweiry’s research (2014), religious factors influenced perceptions of antisemitism. It was used as a point of reference when assessing the current position of Jews in Britain. Using religion as a point of reference has its benefits.

By interpreting the religious teachings to be that antisemitism is inevitable, than the experiences of victimisation also become inevitable. This gives a way for participants to cope with their victimisation (normalisation). Therefore, the religious teachings helped participants manage their emotions.

It was important for me to get a more professional opinion as to what was in fact written in the Torah and whether it has been ordained that antisemitism

‘has always been and will always be’. I chose to interview a leading Jewish

Philosopher in the Jewish community (March 2017) and asked him whether there is a Torah source which states that antisemitism is an unyielding phenomenon. He stated:

I don’t agree that it will always be and I don’t agree that it always was. We have a statement by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai who says: Halacha he, beyedua sh-eisav sone leyaakov, ela beos hashaa, nichmu rachamaiv veneshako bechul libo translated as follows: it is known that Esav hates Yaakov but there is a halacha, that means received wisdom from G-d, that at the time when Esav met Yaakov, his heart turned to vengeance softened, and he kissed Yaakov with all his heart, which demonstrates that antisemitism is not an absolute constant. It might be our generalised experience from the generations. But it is not set in stone…I am not aware of a source that says that there will be antisemitism.

Seeking more knowledge on this point from this particular philosopher illuminated what the participants said about antisemitism being a Torah source.

I do bear in mind however that religious texts can be interpreted in multiple ways. However, I can assume that his opinion would be the dominant one among more learned Orthodox Jewry.

227

Therefore, despite there not being a Torah source for ongoing antisemitism, some participants appeared to mitigate their perceptions of antisemitism by placing it under the label of religious teachings. Being able to compare victimisation with the conflict between Esav and Yaakov or the fact that they are in galus, appeared to provide security to respondents. If the forefathers and

Torah leaders endured antisemitism, why shouldn’t they?

3. The New Antisemitism

There has been an ongoing debate about the interplay between antisemitism and antizionism (Klug, 2013). Many Jews are concerned about the way that anti-Israel sentiment has spilt over into antisemitism (what is now termed as the

‘new antisemitism’) and feel that the lines have become blurred (Hirsh, 2007).

Iganski (2008) argued that the Israel – Palestine conflict, at times, is used as a platform for the voicing of prejudices, that have been festering under the surface for many individuals. Sacks (1993) wrote that the people of Israel are the people who experienced ‘Holocaust and heroism, threat and survival, destruction and redemption’ (p.108). For Sacks, to say that one is anti-zionist but not antisemitic is filled with flaws, because the whole baseline of the formation of Israel was to provide Jews with a homeland so that they can be free to be Jews. For Sacks

(1993), the original concept of anti-zionism and the concept of antisemitism are wholly intertwined, as the birth of the State of Israel, following the Holocaust, has a deep impact on Jewish identity. Therefore, when one is derogatory against Israel, it parallels with being derogatory to their Judaism.

228 The other side of the argument is that it is perfectly legitimate to question the actions of the policies of Israel. ‘“Zionism”’ as a concept, remains a valid topic for academic and political debate, both within and outside Israel (Mirvis, 14 July

2016 Q416). Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis commented that ‘it is a healthy phenomenon within our democratic world to have the right to criticise the policies of any particular government’ (14 July 2016 Q416). However, as the

Chief Rabbi mentioned in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee: ‘If one is obsessively concentrating on Israel alone, one has to wonder where it comes from’ (Q416). Zionism, he stated, is an ‘integral part of Judaism’ (Q418). It is

‘the centre of a Jews’ spiritual universe’ (Q418), therefore to criticise the actions of a government is wholly separate to being anti-zionist (Q418).

Participants believed that ‘antisemitism is definitely back on. It has a lot to do with anti-zionism and the fact that people get mixed up between anti-zionism and Jews’ (R3), ‘A lot or rather the majority of Jewish people, will align the person’s’ attitude to Israel with their attitude to Jews’ (R15). R20 agreed with this view:

History has shown itself that when there have been problems with anti-Israel things, that they start with the local Jews, even though they have nothing to do with it. They put it all in the same box. Definitely. (R20)

Underlying this was the suggestion made by respondents that people feel that

Jews in Britain are responsible for actions of Israel. Accusations of dual loyalty, holding British Jews as collectively responsible for Israel’s actions, was a reoccurring theme (Gidley, 2014). R11 commented:

My brother feels that his safety is threatened because of a nation (Israel), not a religion, a political nation and its policy. That he as an English citizen living in England, of the Jewish religion, has no connection with. (R11)

229

These views are in line with Staetsky’s 2017 survey (that followed the JPR survey), which found that ‘the greater the level of antipathy towards Israel, the more likely they are to register on the antisemitism index’ (Staetsky, 2017, p.35).

The notion that trigger events in Israel often act out as a catalyst for events in the UK has been discussed in the literature review (CST, 2014). Participants believed that mainstream population often associated them with Israel. This in turn, specifically at times of conflict, has led to increased levels of concern among a few respondents. R11 referred back to the summer of 2014, a period where there had been a spike in military action between Israel and Gaza. She described the community alert being much higher during this period and feeling scared. R11 was aware that there is a synthesis between events taking place in Israel and the way the Jewish community feels in London.

In concluding this section, hearing from the voices of Rabbis, particularly from the current and previous Chief Rabbis strengthens the narrative. Their views, which challenge that there is much of a difference between antizionism and antisemitism, is likely to be the common narrative among Orthodox Jews

(Sacks, 1993; Hirsh, 2007). Jewish newspapers and community speakers question the motive behind antizionist comments and this may feed onto the public and explain this community’s focus on Labour’s antisemitism. It is useful to hear from the voices of those who lead the community, as these are not perceptions of ordinary people; they see the broader picture which can assist in understanding the context. The interview respondents too, were largely in

230 line with the same narrative. Respondents expressed concern about the motivation behind this expression of hostility to Israel. Many of the respondents felt that anti-zionistic feelings were masking antisemitic feelings. They commented that the expression of antizionism constitutes disguised antisemitism and that the association of Jews with Israel lay at the heart of much antisemitism.

4. Personally victimised

Research has shown that perceptions of fear is linked with previous victimisation (Garofalo, 1979). Wilcox et.al. (2005), found that the factor which related most strongly to perceived fear, was previous experiences of victimisation. However, by looking at the data in my study more closely, I was not able to find any correlation in this sample between the levels of concern expressed by some respondents with the frequency of incidents experienced.

Personal victimisation and subsequent emotional responses were not linear, nor predictable.

By way of example, one would perhaps have expected R20, who faced a near- death experience, to express high levels of fear about the scale and significance of antisemitism. R20 could not say with certainty whether antisemitism is on the rise and did not feel that there is an overall sense of fear.

Or, by way of another example, R12, who despite being physically attacked by two men wearing balaclavas, stated ‘I am not able to say that it is a particular issue’. When contrasting their perception of antisemitism with that of R28 for instance, who has not been personally victimised, one would expect him to be milder in his perceptions. But in this instance, it was reversed. R28 felt that

231 there are strong undercurrents of antisemitism and was weary. Personal victimisation therefore did not exclusively correlate to the level of concern participants expressed about this phenomenon. However, I do bear in mind the dimension of time. Perhaps if those targeted participants were interviewed immediately after their respective attacks, they would have responded very differently.

One interviewee appreciated the possibility of the link between victimisation and perceptions:

I am not sure because if one has a personal experience than you subjectively feel that there is more around. It is hard to know if objectively or not antisemitism is on the rise. Has reporting increased or have actual incidents increased? (R11)

Overall, personal victimisation was not the main contributory factor in effecting perceptions. Interviewees appeared to have their individual way of making sense of their personal victimisation and this alone did not necessarily inform their perceptions of antisemitism.

5. Space and place: the significance of location

Antisemitism in the UK was frequently measured against other places in my sample. Comparing levels of safety with other neighbourhoods, other cities and other counties was a contributory factor to perceptions of antisemitism. The dimension of space as part of the discourse of safety, became apparent. Home and the neighbourhood are places where individuals are expected to feel safe.

Indeed, the two neighbourhoods in question provide Orthodox Jews with a lifestyle based on broad Jewish infrastructures including kosher shops, synagogues, kollels (Jewish educational institutions), and Jewish cemeteries.

232 One cannot drive through one of these neighbours and not notice that these are predominantly Jewish neighbourhoods. In light of this, the section below will highlight that, on the whole, Orthodox Jewish members felt safer within their respective neighbourhood than elsewhere. This feeling of higher security levels within the neighbourhood nonetheless needs to be seen in the context that there is a growing feeling of antisemitism being on the rise.

The following comments illustrate that feelings of safety within their respective neighbourhood was a commonly held view: ‘There is a sense of security within the neighbourhood…I always think it’s not going to happen here’ (R4), ‘Our strength is in our numbers living together…in places likes Stamford Hill, where there is such diversity in cultures and the Orthodox Community has been here for so long, the general public tolerates us a lot more’ (R15), ‘Most of the streets that I walk around are in Golders Green, so yes, I feel quite secure’ (R21), ‘I must say we do feel very secure here…we are such a big community (R23), ‘If anything, in the last 10 years, people feel very confident and very safe (in the neighbourhood)’ (R26).

Participants felt safer in spaces and places where there was an established public presence of Jews by virtue of ‘safety in numbers’. By way of example,

R8 who was abused on the train back from Newcastle, said he feels safe living in Golders Green but would feel nervous making that journey again from

Newcastle in the late hours of Saturday night. R8 differentiated between living in Gateshead or Stamford Hill to living in Golders Green. He stated: ‘Anybody living in Gateshead takes it for granted that they will be beaten up at some point in their lives. This is their reality.’ R10 also expressed a sense of security

233 travelling on the Northern line which often has Jewish people travelling on it, and compared it to the lack of security she would feel travelling on a public bus where she would feel more conspicuous. The risk of attack and sense of vulnerability were perceived to be significantly higher in spaces where the

Jewish population was minimal.

These views are consistent with current literature which shows that victims feel safer in the local neighbourhood than they do in other places (Paterson et al.,

2008). It is also consistent with the research of Moran and Skeggs (2004) who stress that a sense of community is fundamental to feeling safe because

‘community gives you a sense of belonging “of being yourself”, it is therefore a key factor in experiences of security and safety’ (p.9). These feelings of security are in line with existing studies on social cohesion. These studies show that individuals who feel connected to their communities and are more invested in their neighbourhoods have lower fear of crime because they feel safer in their community (Swatt et al., 2013). There was a common thread running through the data of safety within the community.

This sense of safety was not consistent with communal figures. The CST (CST

Antisemitic Incidents Jan-June 2017) reported that of the 426 antisemitic incidents recorded between January to June 2017, 158 were recorded in Barnet

(NW London) and 47 in Hackney (Stamford Hill), totalling nearly half of overall antisemitic incidents in the UK in that period. Communal figures therefore show that it is within those neighbourhoods that antisemitism is most likely to be revealed.

234 These feelings of safety within the neighbourhoods are also contradictory to research which shows that, for some, home is not a safe place (Dunn, 2010).

In the research of Dunn (2010), home, for many of the homosexual participants has become a place of fear and a battleground; generating feelings of entrapment, hopelessness, and loss (Dunn, 2010). For Orthodox Jews, home and the neighbourhood represent places of safety. However, I do bear in mind that these two communities are not akin in nature, as the LGBT communities do not have the same pre-established community ties as the Orthodox Jewish communities.

Evident within my data, is the discourse of ‘here’ and ‘there’. ‘Here’ relates to their respective neighbourhood and ‘there’ relates to other Jewish neighbourhoods, other cities and other countries. Therefore, a resident of North

West London, would consider that particular neighbourhood is safe and those feelings of safety would not even extend to the neighbourhood of Stamford Hill and vice versa. The discourse of ‘here’ and ‘there’ is a discourse about the perception of the ‘local’ versus the ‘global’ context. The ‘local’ of respondents is perceived as safe relative to the ‘global’ context. There is an instinctive awareness of place among the data, a valuation of their own place in relation to others. ‘Place-awareness nowadays tends to be relational and comparative’

(Sparks, 2001, p.888). The comments below illustrate the two different discourses of safety.

A resident of Stamford Hill remarked: ‘I always think it’s not going to happen here. It’s going to happen in Manchester, it’s going to happen in Golders Green’

(R4). ‘To be honest I feel very much that there is no risk, specifically in Stamford

235 Hill’ (R23). These are examples by those who perceive their neighbourhood

(SH) to be safer than other localities (Golders Green). However, the following are comments made by NW London residents who feel that Stamford Hill is not the safe neighbourhood: ‘In Stamford Hill, where there had been a number of incidents, the people effected may feel that there is a constant danger’ (R6) or

‘I wonder whether the community in Stamford Hill, perhaps closer in proximity to the Muslim community in Tower Hamlets, may feel more vulnerable’ (R11).

R17, a Golders Green resident, described not sensing any levels of antisemitism within Golders Green. R17 frequently read about antisemitic incidents which took place in Stamford Hill and stated that the prevalence of incidents may be due to the fact that there is more cultural diversity in Golders

Green, whereas in Stamford Hill, it is largely chassidish, and therefore victimisation is more likely as there are more visible Jews. These comments highlight that even when comparing the two most religious Jewish neighbourhoods in London, some participants viewed their local neighbourhood as safe, whereas the ‘other’ Jewish neighbourhood as being a place of unsafety. The comments infer that the place of safety was confined to their own neighbourhood alone and did not even extend to other Jewish neighbourhoods.

This highlights the way locality shapes experiences of space and fear.

The accounts also evidence respondents’ negotiation of public space. ‘It’s made me think a bit more about going to a place like Brent Cross (shopping centre). I walk down Golders Green Road at 10pm at night and I don’t blink’

(R13). R13’s remarks show the two discourses of safety - the feeling of safety of living within the neighbourhood versus the insecurity which arises being in public places.

236

Some participants expressed their feelings of security within the neighbour in relation to other cities and countries. The UK was not considered in isolation.

‘Even if I compare it to America and other modern European States, the UK is enjoying a time where people are happy by and large…I think it’s better by comparison to other European cities’ (R24). ‘I don’t think it’s (antisemitism) here more than anywhere else. I think in America also. It’s also rampant with antisemitism’ (FG6), ‘If you look around the world, it’s one of the more stable examples of decent living’ (FG3), ‘There is less of it in the UK, than the rest of

Europe (R15), ‘I think its better by comparison to other European cities. Being in England, London is a multicultural city so it’s probably better than many other cities in England’ (R24), I personally feel that we are just as safe here as we are anywhere else (R3), ‘If you are comparing London and Paris I would say that there is a marked difference and that there is antisemitism in France and that it’s very blatant. Not so here’ (R6).

However, there were a few interviewees who referred to other countries in order to show that antisemitism was in fact more visible in the UK. FG4, who worked as Rabbi, on American campus, for 4 years commented: ‘I never got once looked at, once a raised eyebrow. FG2 supported this contention and said that

‘American values are ones of tolerance’. FG4 said: ‘I get that but I have family in America, and they don’t feel what there is here. They do not feel the feeling that we feel here. They all say to me: what’s going on in Europe?!’ (FG4).

Some interviewees were under no illusion that UK could be the next. They believed that merely because the UK has been spared any major incidents, that

237 is not to mean that they are distant from it. It reiterates what has been discussed in section 5.2.3 (precarious safety) regarding feeling secure in the present yet insecure about the future. R28 remarked: ‘We are aware that we are under threat whenever anything goes on in Paris or in Germany or in Belgium, we say, are we next?’ Even if it’s somewhere else, it means it is here (FG3). R21 agreed:

(It) is quite frightening, in Paris. So there have been people who would say, the same things which happen to us in Paris would happen to us in London, and generally we would up and go. (R21)

Superintendent FG9 commented:

If you look at how we respond to terrorism. We haven’t suffered in this country like what’s happened in Belgium, France, Israel, Denmark. The traditional forms of antisemitism which we spoke about that happen in Stamford Hill, happen. But they happen in quite a closed community and it doesn’t necessarily transcend to the wider community. It’s starting to. Therefore, people’s minds are made up but what they see. Whether that means that their sense of personal security is altered may not effect. I guarantee the first time France or Denmark happens here, that would change. (FG9)

Others commented:

If you go to France, I’ve been to Paris not so long ago, there was a marked difference there. So, if you are comparing London and Paris I would say that there is a marked difference and that there is antisemitism in France and that it’s very blatant. Not so here. (R6)

To be honest I feel very much that there is no risk. The non-Jewish people do respect the Jewish people here. I mean specifically in Stamford Hill…We live on good terms together. Very much so… I only had one incident. I had it outside of Stamford Hill. We were outside of London, along the countryside, by the beach front. And a car drove past us and yelled at us. (R23)

The theme which has emerged from this section is the sense of place. The idea of security being closer or further in proximity. For some, crime and disorder were largely viewed as being far removed from their neighbourhoods. For many

238 respondents, the demarcating of the neighbourhood represented a sense of safety whereas the global context (be it another Jewish neighbourhood or another city or country), raised concerns about crime. There was a tone of pushing the concerns of crime to another place.

This notion of safety within the neighbourhood was at times, an imagined space. Lash and Urry (1994) discuss the creation of ‘place myths’. By way of example, R23, in order to recreate a sense of security commented that the

Jewish population is ‘such a big community’, despite its small number. This being an example of the way a place can be imagined and defended.

The practice of demarcating a safe place resonates with the demarcating of the eruv. The eruv is a boundary line, formed by an almost invisible wire, which encloses North West London (Golders Green and Hendon). The purpose of the eruv is to redefine the activities permitted in semi-public space for the purposes of the Sabbath in order that activities normally allowed only in the private domain can be performed (Valins, 2000, p.579). It is an Orthodox Jewish space, a physical space, but in this context could be seen as a symbolic space. The delineation of a territorial boundary represents a symbolic space of safety.

Distancing oneself from the places of danger, by removing oneself from its proximity, may be a coping mechanism. Indeed, those places could be quite near geographically but by relocating the incidents elsewhere, the respondents maintain a sense of containment. The ‘here’ is safe - it only happens ‘there’.

Perhaps negotiating space in this way is a quest for security.

239 This discussion demonstrates the way respondents almost created invisible boundaries of safety: the notion of ‘here’ being safe and ‘there’ being unsafe. It illuminated that individuals develop emotional attachment to place and that place continues to matter to people. It highlighted the multiplicity of meaning and nuances attached to different spaces and places. It showed that respondent’s discussion of place is complex and moves from experiences to theories, speculations and assumptions.

6. Heightened Security Measures

There is an awareness amongst respondents that security measures have heightened. Levels of security have increased among Jewish communal buildings, largely due to the increased rate of antisemitic attacks within Europe.

As referred to in the literature review, there is continued funding by the government to provide security for Jewish institutions in the UK.

Interviewees raised concern over the need to heighten security measures. R28 described that having guards outside the schools and the synagogues, which he finds important, is a reminder that the Jews are under threat. FG11 recounted that one female member of the synagogue he belongs to burst into tears when she saw the security guards for the first time, ‘because of the implications that it was felt necessary to do that’ (FG11).

R8 questioned the affectivity of these security measures:

I go to JFS, and the security, in order to get into the building, there are double gates and security all around. And whether that is legitimate and whether this is necessary, it might be perpetuating itself and creating the element of fear. (R8)

240 This is consistent with research which illuminates that school security measures had the general effect of increasing levels of fear (Schreck and

Miller, 2003; Bachman et al., 2011). Studies show that the presence of both metal detectors and guards significantly increase perceptions of fear (Schreck and Miller, 2003; Bachman et al., 2011). Paradoxically, the heightened security measures seem to feed feelings of insecurity.

Some commented on the fact that these increased security measures are a recent development and not something which they had to consider previously.

FG13 described that the general sentiment among the community has always been anti-security, that there was a laissez faire attitude, but that has changed’

(FG13).

I am a rabbi of a synagogue and in the past few months in particular, we have been much more vigilant. We have hired a full- time security guard on Shabbos morning. That it partly funded by the government. We have never had that before. In that past we have had volunteers but it is the first time that we have something like that. Growing up, all the shuls around here, never had codes on the door. Now you need to have a notebook with you with all the codes because everyone has a code and everyone feels that extra ramped out vigilant. (FG5)

There was an awareness by respondents that places of worship and schools have needed to strengthen their security measures. It is hard to ascertain what the precursor is; whether it was the increasing levels of security that lead to a heightened sense of fear or whether it was the sense of angst which was followed by increasing security measures. Notwithstanding this debate, the palpable increase in security measures created a lingering question about the resurgence of antisemitism.

7. Expressions of support from externals

241 The final contributory factor which framed perceptions on antisemitism, which was raised by some of the participants, was the positive experiences and expressions of support from non-Jews. These positive experiences often moderated the inferences which they may have otherwise drawn from their personal experiences, the increase in antisemitic rhetoric within the media and the Labour party as well as the increased feelings of insecurity during incidents in Israel.

A couple of respondents referred to the Nazi march which had been scheduled to take place in Golders Green, during the summer of 2015. On the day of the march, after much objection, a change of location had been agreed and the march was moved to Westminster. Much solidarity was displayed among the community at large, not just the Jewish community. Individuals turned up with banners reading ‘Golders Green, we stand together’. The determination to stamp out these acts within the neighbourhood left the respondents with positive perceptions of the community at large.

R24 stressed that his business interactions, with predominantly non-Jews people, have only been positive:

People would try and bend backwards to make me feel comfortable. Sometimes if there is a dinner they would make sure that there is some kosher food for me. And credit must be given, and must be said of the social awareness that business establishments would be very aware and sensitive to the keeping of the religion. (R24)

I think I am very lucky in that whoever I tell to that I am Jewish, I normally get a positive response from them. And they are either very eager to understand more and learn more about it or they ask my opinions on things, especially Muslim people… I get a very good vibe from them. (R1)

242 Whilst R20 was recovering in hospital from his multiple injuries, he too experienced reassuring gestures. Not only did the Chief Rabbi at the time, Lord

Sacks, showed support by visiting him, The Queen, who was opening a new hospital wing, came to pay a personal visit. These visits were a recognition of his victim status. They represented symbolic visits; strong affirmations of appearing to combat antisemitism.

Several interviewees stressed the positive measures which have been taken on a governmental level: ‘You have David Cameron who openly shows our support to us and has given £30m to provide more security’ (R2), ‘The government, and the government’s departments have a very strong commitment to treat Jews with equality. They have a positive attitude towards

Jews’ (FG17). R11 was comforted by London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who, on the first day of his tenure as Mayor of London, visited the Holocaust Museum: ‘that actually makes me feel supported and assured… it feels good that somebody like that can do an action which can reassure’. She continued:

And I just wonder, in light of that, if there were more people from outside the Jewish community, let’s say of this Sadiq Kahn ilk, the unexpected places, expressing support… You feel that you are not in it alone, that you are not this tiny little community… So, if there was a wider harmony of voices. (R11)

Many participants have shared positive experiences and expressions of support from non-Jews. In forming their perceptions as to whether antisemitism is in existence, these positive experiences were balanced against the various, more challenging, factors. For those respondents who experienced support from externals, they were left with the sentiment that not everyone is antisemitic, that there are people who are prepared to put themselves out on

243 the line to protect the Jews and having this realisation infused them with positive perceptions as to the extent of antisemitism in Britain.

It is these contributory factors, which need to be read as part of a whole, that frame perceptions of antisemitism within the Orthodox Jewish community.

5.4 Conclusion

This research is an important step in seeking clarity regarding antisemitism by drawing upon lived social experiences of respondents. Respondents have been subjected to antisemitic incidents which fall into several categories (as seen in

Chapter 4), but also, antisemitism has been perceived and observed in a multitude of ways.

This chapter explored the perceptions which the Orthodox Jewish community hold on antisemitism. This chapter first discussed the respondents’ overall assessment of the prevalence of antisemitism. It has shown that the perceptions of the levels of antisemitism varied in extent. The degree of intensity increased from respondents sensing that there is antisemitism but that it is not effecting them on a daily basis, and culminated in respondents starting to discuss emigration. The second part of this chapter highlighted that underpinning these ranges of perceptions were seven contributory factors.

These contributory factors led some participants to express a sense that there is a resurgence of antisemitism, whereas others to feel that they are rather comfortable living as Orthodox Jews in Britain.

244 Most prominent on the scale of intensity was the acknowledgement that there has been a shift in the expression of antisemitism. This shift was most apparent within the media, within the Labour party, on campus and in the type of perpetrator and type of violence. Least prominent on this scale of intensity was the temptation of emigration. Overall this chapter highlighted that the large majority of participants felt that there is a resurgence of antisemitism in London, leading to a greater sense of discomfort among the Orthodox Jewish community.

This chapter emphasised that these perceptions are often based on a multicity of factors, that the meaning which respondents attribute to the factors vary and that answering the question of whether antisemitism is on the rise is a complex and multifaceted issue.

Cumulatively therefore, the themes in this and the previous chapter, painted two key findings. Firstly, the prevalence of antisemitism within the lives of

Orthodox Jews. Second, the awareness that antisemitism is alive and that there has been a shift in its manifestation, making it more institutionalised and therefore powerful.

245 CHAPTER 6: COPING MECHANISMS

6.1 Introduction

Thus far, the types of incidents, their immediate responses to the victimisation and the perceptions of antisemitic victimisation upon the Orthodox Jewish community have been discussed. Chapter 4 revealed the various incidents of antisemitism directed at the Orthodox Jewish community. It illuminated the extent of the victimisation, with the prevalence of incidents among the community forming the backdrop of everyday lives of Orthodox Jews. It highlighted that by and large Orthodox Jews normalise the incidents and accept it as part of daily lives. Chapter 5 examined the various perceptions which

Orthodox Jews hold regarding antisemitism. It illuminated that on the whole, participants sensed that there is a shift in the manifestations of antisemitism and that it had become more overt. I will now turn to discuss the way these incidents, together with the perceptions, play out in practice. In particular, I will examine the coping mechanisms participants adopted in light of these incidents and perceptions. As discussed in Chapter 4, hate crime victimisation is ‘a dynamic process, occurring over time’ (Bowling, 1999, p.285) and therefore the extent to which these set of effects determine Orthodox Jews’ lived experiences stems from a complex interaction between the nature and impact of this victimisation as well as the victims’ coping mechanisms.

Building on this phenomenon, this particular chapter will focus on the participants’ coping mechanisms towards antisemitism. In order to lessen vulnerability to crime and because of fear of re-victimisation, victims of hate crime often adopt certain coping mechanisms. Coping mechanisms are the precautionary measures individuals take to manage potential victimisation

246 (Lane et. al., 2014). ‘Coping with victimisation is … a process that involves rebuilding one’s assumptive world (that the world is a safe place)’ (Janoff-

Bulman and Frieze, 1983, pp.1-2). Research indicates that once victimised, there appears to be an increased perceived vulnerability to crime (Tseloni,

2007). The quantitative research of Tseloni (2007) shows that past victimisation more than doubles the ratio of being in fear of crime (Tseloni, 2007). Riordan

(1999) found that victims of incident exposure expressed greater fear of the offence reoccurring, with this fear swelling for those who were multiple victims.

It is on this basis that victims adopt precautionary measures to manage future victimisation.

Commonplace coping mechanisms, referenced in the literature review, were withdrawal, isolation and the negotiation of identity. Paterson et al., (2008) who researched homophobic or transphobic female victims, found that in order to avoid future victimisation, half of the respondents had altered their behaviour or appearance. Perry (2009, p.14) sums up many Native Americans’ reactions to daily racist violence as ‘characterized by withdrawal, anger, or even retaliation’.

This chapter will aim to answer research question number 3, which is what coping mechanisms are adopted by the Orthodox Jewish community, in response to the rise in antisemitism? It will examine, in light of the incidents they were subjected to and their perceptions, what precautionary measures they had adopted in order to minimise their vulnerability and to manage future victimisation.

Chapter 4 (Types of Incidents), illustrated that individuals’ immediate responses

247 to their victimisation was one of acceptance. In a similar vein, this chapter will reveal that, in the long-term, the coping mechanism which was adopted to manage the victimisation, was often one of acceptance. The first part of this chapter will reveal that by and large, the vast majority of the respondents who were victimised had normalised the victimisation. Approximately three quarters of the victimised respondents expressed a high level of tolerance for the victimisation.

I will propose that the respondents had managed to respond in this way due to two distinct yet overlapping factors – their strong religious upbringing as well as their close community ties. This will be discussed in further detail in subsection

6.2. If anything, the victimisation did not have the effect of questioning their faith, but rather in a strengthening of their beliefs and the establishment of closer ties with their community.

The second part of this chapter will illuminate that, a small minority (a quarter) responded to the victimisation by adopting preventative measures to avoid victimisation. Correspondingly, these preventative measures which the respondents adopted can be divided into short-term measures and long- term measures. Within the paradigm of short-term measures, three strategies were adopted: 1. Heightening security measures, 2. Avoidance and 3. Identity negotiation. Within the paradigm of long-term measures, two strategies were adopted: 1. Consideration of emigration. 2. Applying for foreign passports.

These two paradigms are not mutually exclusive and respondents could adopt short-term as well as long-term measures alongside one another.

248 Durkeim (1915) and Conklin (1975) provide opposing consequences for victims of crime. Durkeim (1915) argued that crime leads individuals to act and be agents. Conklin (1975), on the other hand, argued that crime erodes feelings of security, and causes withdrawal and suspicion (Conklin, 1975). The coping mechanisms described below will reflect both views of Durkeim and Conklin. A couple of respondents chose preventative measures, but most respondents chose normalisation and acceptance. Respondents gave meaning to the incidents in various ways.

The coping mechanisms adopted are illustrated in diagram 3 below.

249 250

On the whole, respondents have mainly shown higher levels of tolerance towards victimisation, by relying on their religious beliefs and strong community ties, rather than choosing withdrawal or isolation. This chapter will reveal that the respondents retained their strong religious identity amidst these potential challenges and that they have shown resilience in the face of adversity. By engaging in positive coping mechanisms, individuals chose to regain autonomy and control.

Finally, the chapter examines that the concept of victimisation is almost absent within the data. Holstein and Miller (1999) used symbolic interactionism to show the way one attains, or fails to attain victim status. As victimisation is a process of interaction, others are required to define the victim as such, but the victim too is required to identify himself as a victim (Rock, 2002). The chapter will conclude with some suggestions as to the reasons the status of victim was not embraced by the Orthodox Jewish community in my sample.

6.2 Normalisation

The main coping mechanism which was evident across the data, was to normalise the incidents. Respondents downplaying the severity of the incident was first discussed in Chapter 4. My research does not reflect the commonplace coping mechanisms adopted by victims of hate crime. As evident in the literature review chapter, research on coping mechanisms highlights that many victims adopt various strategies, such as withdrawal from main stream society (Dzelme, 2008), isolation (Breakwell, 1986), negotiating their appearance publicly or negotiating their identity (Perry, 2014). My findings are

251 not line with most existing literature. Far weightier, was the ability of respondents to show higher levels of tolerance towards victimisation.

We have seen in chapter 4 that many of those victimised dismissed the victimisation as ‘not a big deal’ or ‘as part of being Jewish’. When asked what their immediate response was to the incident, most participants responded that ongoing abuse was normal and very much part of life, seeming to have little effect. Just as participants had managed to accept the victimisation in the aftermath of the incident, the data reflects that this feeling of acceptance extended itself in the long term, in not adopting mainstream coping mechanisms. By accepting or normalising the incidents, participants did not choose to isolate themselves, or withdraw themselves, nor to shape their identity. Nor did not take matters further; there was acceptance and they did not wallow in it.

One respondent commented: ‘I experience so much abuse on a regular basis that it has become part of my life. I just accept it’ (R19). A Shomrim volunteer said: ‘…people just accept it… I’m talking about the car that passes shouting out of the car: Heil Hitler. That kind of thing. That’s just part of it. They accept it and move on. They see it as part of life’ (FG19). R12 stressed that:

At the end of the day, I need to get on with my life. Part of me thinks, why should I allow them to control my life and dictate how I live. I got attacked on the street. Ok, it can happen to anybody. It happens all the time, people get robbed, people get mugged. People get attacked. It happens. Stuff happens to you in life. (R12)

This data is consistent with research conducted of homosexual victims who have normalised the incidents (Garnets et al., 1992) and who ‘often minimise the impact of hate motivated verbal attacks’ (Garnets et al., 1992, p.215). It is

252 also in line with the work of Githens-Mazer and Lambert (2010) which showed that accepting the victimisation was a mindful coping mechanism (Githens-

Mazer and Lambert, 2010).

Hein et al., (2013), referred to in the literature review, compared LGBT victims with victims of religious, ethnic or race hate crimes. They assert that in this latter group the victims have been raised to deal with their individual beliefs. Hein et al., (2013), claim that these coping skills have either been directly taught or role- modelled by an adult within the community. There is an implied understanding,

Hein et al. (2013) state, that the community will assist and support a targeted individual. From a young age, it is common for Jewish (Israeli) youths to experience some form of antagonism and to become skilled in processing it

(Dor-Shav, 1990). ‘Jews, as a group, are better equipped than homosexuals, to deal with prejudice and discrimination’ (Leets, 2002, p.346).

This normalisation of these incidents was evident in three ways throughout the thesis. The thesis has culminated in many participants overlooking the incident in the aftermath of the victimisation (as discussed in chapter 4). Second, discounting the idea of reporting the abuse. In only four of the incidents, participants chose to report to the police. Whilst, this will be discussed in further detail in the next chapter, suffice to say that their choosing not to report further supports the notion that they accepted the victimisation as part of their day-to- day life. Third, in not adopting other coping mechanism to fend future victimisation, such as withdrawal or isolation.

253 Other than choosing not to report, a further noticeable sign of normalisation was that the victimisation was rarely discussed with others. Whilst in the immediate aftermath, the victim would share the incident with another, it would not be laboured on with others. The fact that many victims rarely discussed the incidents with others is reflective of the fact that it was not such a pressing issue and that participants normalised the incidents.

The question which arises is whether by choosing not to take matters further, it is a genuine dismissal of the incident or whether it is a forceful attempt not be labelled as victim. According to Mythen (2009), by ignoring the abuse or dismissing it as ‘not serious’, victims chose not to view themselves or to be defined by others as victims. This will be discussed in detail at subsection 6.4.

I suggest that choosing to accept the victimisation was a form of agency. It is a coping mechanism, a choice, intended so as not to allow the abuse to escalate.

Deciding to ignore the abuse was a form of resistance in itself.

Hence, a distinctive pattern of normalising these experiences proved to be the main coping mechanism adopted by those who had experienced antisemitism.

Dismissing these incidents as inevitable allowed Orthodox Jews to function as

British Jews. The pattern of normalising the hurt was used to rationalise its existence, to justify that some level of hostility is inevitable. I propose that respondents had managed to respond in this way, due to two distinct yet overlapping factors – their strong religious identity and their close community ties. I will turn to discuss each in turn.

6.2a Religious coping

254 As a prelude to the discussion, it needs to be stressed that religion is a fundamental tenant of an Orthodox Jewish life. As all the participants are

Orthodox Jews and therefore monotheists, these experiences cannot be seen in isolation to G-d. As described in the section 1.8b of identity theory, their level of salience to their religious identity is very high. Their belief in G-d is enmeshed into their being and therefore, when faced with any incident, individuals will question its meaning and significance. As Donin (1972) claimed, the Jewish religion ‘is a source of cultural and personal identity…and provides values to guide throughout all life’ (p.30).

The large majority of participants emphasised their strong Jewish identity: ‘I feel sturdy and solid in my Jewishness’ (R10), ‘It’s overriding strong’ (R14), ‘I grew up with it. Without it I guess I’d be a bit lost’. (R17) ‘Very much an essential part of my life’ (R21). ‘It defines me. Apart from being female, being Jewish is the next thing’ (R25), ‘It’s my life. It’s who I am. It’s very integral. It’s part of me’

(R27), ‘When I meet people, new people, I always first tell them that I am a Jew’

(R4), ‘Being Jewish is an integral part of your identity’ (R8), ‘Totally, totally. It’s the top thing. Everything floats from there’ (R13). R13 continued to recall her glass speech:

There was somebody who spoke about time management and they introduced the topic by producing a glass. And he said I could put various things in the glass. What should I put in the glass first? He filled the glass with the biggest stones first. Is the glass full? Then he took gravel. Is it full now? Then he took sand? Is it full now? Then he took water and filled it to the top. You can achieve much more in your life according to what you put in the glass. And when I give speeches, I’ve always said that the big stones are Judaism. Everything is around that. I’ve always said, that I couldn’t be a mother, I couldn’t do the things that I do, and especially I couldn’t fit in my working life, if I didn’t put those stones first. (R13)

255 Religion is often at the core of individual and group identity. Mol (1976) labelled the primary role of religion as the equilibrium of the individual and group identity.

According to Mol (1976), religion resists constant change and by doing so, affords individuals more ‘secure anchors for self-reference’ (Mol, 1976, p.3).

Mol (1976) feels that religion provides the predictability and permanency that individuals need in order to sustain a sense of psychological stability. Phinney

(1990) illuminates that ethnic identity is critically important to the individual’s psychological well-being when the ethnic group is ‘at best poorly represented

(politically, economically, and in the media) and… at worst discriminated against or even attacked verbally and physically’ (Phinney, 1990, p.499).

But religion goes a step further than enhancing individual and group identity.

Earlier studies report that religion acts as a medium for individuals to cope with stressful situations (Park, 2005). Ai and Park (2005) argued that not everyone who has experienced trauma, ends up developing mental and physical issues, and that being religious dampens the trauma (Ai and Park, 2005). Research has shown that when traumatic life events take place, many people would turn to their religion. By way of example, a community-based survey has shown that the second most commonly used strategy after the September 11 terrorist attacks, was to turn to religion (Schuster et al., 2001). So too, religion was used as the most common coping strategy in a study of Pakistani earthquake survivors (Feder et al., 2013) and in 37% of older adults respondents who had been displaced by Hurricane Katrina (Henderson et al., 2010). Religious coping was also evident in cases of severe disease (Koenig et. al., 2001).

256 Hate crime studies have also revealed that religion can act as an imperative coping mechanism for victims (Spalek, 2002; Shorter-Gooden, 2004). Spalek’s research (2002) concerned the victimisation experiences of Muslim women. It illuminated that meditation and prayer were common responses to crime, with one participant going to the local Imam to ask for special prayers for protection.

The data in my study was consistent with the above studies. Participants were cognisant that part of the way that they obtained their sense of security or resilience, was through the bond of their religion. If anything, the victimisation did not result in them questioning their faith but rather in a strengthening of their beliefs. For some, being subjected to antisemitism had led to the reinforcement of a Jewish identity. R5 commented: ‘I do feel that antisemitism changes who I am as a Jew. Otherwise we would have assimilated 100s of years ago. It makes me stronger as a Jew’ (R5). R8 stated: ‘What happened to me on the train… has made me closer to Hashem (G-d)’. R20 described deep appreciation to G- d for sparing his life, he described that it enhanced his belief in G-d, and that a true miracle had happened:

It’s an experience which has given me a lot of chizzuk (belief in G-d). We make a point of making a seuda hodaah (a meal of thanks) every year, on that anniversary (of the attack). And it’s an experience to grow from. To realise that a nes (a miracle) happened, that it’s to be appreciated. Every day of life is a gift. (R20)

R10 stated that these incidents ultimately ‘strengthen one’s Emunah (belief in

G-d)’. R8, who was assaulted on the train from Newcastle, said:

It doesn’t shake my faith. It has made me closer to Hashem… (G- d). These things happen for a reason, and when it happens, you need to ask yourself what is your relationship to Hashem. When this was all happening, I was duvening, I was saying Tehilim (psalms), and it worked. (R8)

257 This is consistent with Zempi’s research of veiled Muslim women who found that experiences of Islamophobic victimisation have awaken hidden Muslim identities (Zempi, 2014).

Drawing on symbolic interactionism, a religious belief system helps to interpret life events and gives them meaning and coherence. Koenig (2006) claims that a religious belief system contributes to the psychological integration of traumatic experiences. The meaning that participants gave these incidents equipped them to curtail the harm by assessing and rationalising their victimisation experiences. They were able to normalise the incident because of their strong religious identity.

Other than R20 appreciating being spared his life, he recounted that a second miracle unfolded. That being that he not only recovered physically, he had also left the incident emotionally unscarred. R20 described:

It was a nes (a miracle) that I was not suffering from nightmares or dreams or whatever. Or just being ok with leaving the house. Very initially I did have a bit of an issue, that sort of thing, looking over my shoulder. But the Rabbi, I discussed it with him and he put my mind to rest. Saying to me that no one is trying to get me. I would not have coped with it in the same way if I wasn’t living a Torah based lifestyle. (R20)

In this section several studies have shown that many people cope with traumatic or stressor events based on their religious beliefs, this being consistent with my data. Participants were able to normalise the victimisation because of their strong religious identity. Participants held onto a conviction that their lives have meaning, and a belief that things will work out in the end, despite unfavourable odds. Ultimately, what is ostensible from the data is that these

258 victims are not passive sufferers of victimisation, but that the nature and strength of their religious identity has the effect of curtailing the trauma.

6.2b Close community ties

I propose that the second reason participants were able to normalise the victimisation is due to their close community ties or social cohesion. As referred to in the introduction, the Orthodox Jewish community provides rich webs of family and social support for its members. Living in close proximity to other

Jews, working, socialising and attending local synagogues, all these interactions further strengthen the group identity.

From the lenses of social identity theory, our interpersonal relationships, particularly in the context of the groups in which we participate, are central to the project of achieving a secure and positive sense of self. Individuals seek a secure sense of self by ‘striving to achieve or maintain positive social identity’

(Tajfel and Turner, 1986, p.16). Threats to the in-group are experienced as threats to individual identity (Bloom, 1990) and vice versa. The individual and the group are interlinked. When faced with adversity, members of the group will respond to its inadequate social identity in one of several ways. According to

Tajfel and Turner (1986) some may put efforts into assimilating themselves into the out group, others will put efforts into enhancing and strengthening the group identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). On an emotional level, studies show that the victims who have a strong identification with their community are more assertive in their response, seeking help and support, whereas those who lack strong identification with the group are prone to psychological issues (Boeckmann and

Turpin- Petrosino, 2002).

259

Within the data, the participants responded by enhancing and strengthening the group identity. The data reveals that the rise in antisemitism only served to bring the community closer. One participant illustrated that ‘it (antisemitism) pushes me towards the Jewish community’ (R5). R15 commented that ‘our strength is in our numbers living together’ (R15). A certain participant, R2, illustrated that

Jews have always chosen to live in confined neighbourhoods and remain united in close proximity because of the years of persecution. R15 surmised it as ‘our strength is in our numbers living together’ (R15).

R23, in not referring exclusively to hate incidents, commented that within the

Jewish community, ‘there will always be someone to help you, you are never alone’ (R23). One focus group participant remarked: ‘It (antisemitism) is distancing us from the general public. Also there are there are selected universities where you know that there would be a bigger ensemble of Jews’

(FG5). Another focus group participant, said:

I think, that to a degree, there is an undercurrent. It may not be verbalised, but that we are all in it together. And if the ship goes down, G-d forbid, if there is a real fear and danger, like the French are starting to feel, then I think we would come together. (FG4)

This data is consistent with both the work of Leets (2002) who found that Jewish communities have managed to endure centuries of persecution through their persistence, resilience and resilient community structures, and the work of

Cohen (2004) who found that the internal cohesion of Jewish communities and group loyalty has been inspired in reaction to the external pressure of antisemitism.

260 Perhaps it can be argued that the community has adopted an institutionalised coping mechanism. By being self-contained, by setting up infrastructures whereby any aspect of life can be accessed within the neighbourhood - that could be argued to be in response to outside adversarial circumstances. Being able to access employment, education, food, synagogues, all within their respective neighbours, may be said to be a coping mechanism to the rise in antisemitism. The reality is that Orthodox Jewish communities have lived as close-knit communities for centuries and throughout centuries of persecution. It may be that the Orthodox Jewish community prioritise living as part of a cohesive community in order to have ease of access to religious facilities or unconsciously it may be a coping mechanism to protect them from outside prejudices.

Regardless of what the prime motive is behind setting up a close-knit neighbourhood, it is apparent that it is the knowledge that they are part of a whole, which provides participants with a sense of security. It is through the bond within the community, which gives them the protective measure to be able to accept the victimisation. I would argue that it is the level of strong group identity and the sense of belonging to the community which allows them to normalise these incidents.

6.3 Preventative Measures

In contrast to the vast majority of participants who routinely ignored, minimised or dismissed the victimisation, a few respondents demonstrated ‘agency’ in terms of how they responded to such incidents. By agency, I am referring to participants’ attempts to adopt active preventative measures. Of those small

261 number of respondents, the preventative measures they had adopted can be divided into long-term measures and short-term measures. Long-term measures include 1. Emigration and 2. Applying for Foreign Passports. Short- term measures include 1. Heightened security, 2. Avoidance and 3. Identity negotiation. I will discuss each in turn.

6.3.1 Long-term Preventative Measures

In chapter 5 (Perceptions) I had discussed that respondents had revealed that none of the participants had actually resorted to emigrating. This decision not to emigrate is consistent with the low rates of emigration to Israel (JPR, 2014, p.7). For example, ‘only 1.5% of Jews in Britain migrated to Israel between

2001 and 2010’ (JPR, 2014, p.25). However, some consideration had been given to the issue of emigration by some participants. Perceptions varied between those respondents who did not feel that emigration needed to be a consideration to those who were cognisant that whilst they are not considering emigration at present, a future incident could trigger a move. It is unnecessary to rehash the data. Whilst the thought of emigration is starting to rear its head, to date, emigration has not been used as a coping mechanism.

Perhaps for those participants who have considered emigration, the ‘thought’ of emigration is more powerful than the ‘act’ of emigration. Perhaps the thought that emigration was a possible choice, had provided them with more comfort in the face of the instabilities. Considering emigration on its own, can be seen as a coping mechanism, because knowing that emigration is an option, may have provided them with greater levels of security.

262 Linked to the choice to emigrate, is the obtaining of German passports by some of the participants. Participants were more proactive in obtaining foreign passports. R24 was advised by his grandfather (who had escaped the war), to apply for German passports for him and his family ‘because he believes that a

Jew should never have one passport. We should always have a backup set of papers’ (R24). R24’s application for German passports has recently been accepted. R24 described this as ‘a sobering feeling’. R16 and R22 commented:

We have discussed about the idea of getting another passport and being able to escape. I have never followed through with it but we have planted the initial discussions with my husband. (R16)

There is a member of my family who has not renewed their children’s passports. And my mum and dad are going mental. Both of them. Saying you can’t be a Jew in this world and not have a passport out of this country. (R22)

Whilst these participants rejected the possibility of emigration, they were nonetheless taking active steps to be able to leave the UK should the need arise. Applying for foreign passports was a preventative measure that participants took in order to avoid future victimisation on a larger scale.

6.3.2 Short-term Preventative Measures

I will now turn to discuss the coping mechanisms adopted in the present day.

There were 3 different measures which participants adopted in dealing with potential victimisation. Security measures were heightened, avoidance measures were adopted in several spheres and finally consideration was given to identity negotiation.

i. Heightened security measures

263 As discussed in Chapter 5 (Perceptions) there has been a shift in recent years in that heightened security measures have been put in place. FG13 remarked:

I think that the general sentiment has always been that we were always very anti any sort of security outside our shuls for various reasons… there wasn’t a great feel of need, there was a leis a fair attitude to security, but that has changed. (FG13)

Again, I do not wish to rehash the data which has been detailed in s. 5.3 subsection 6. There was a general consensus among the respondents that

Jews are far more vigilant and there is now a need for increased security measures, whereas it was not necessary in the past.

ii. Avoidance

At times, there were avoidance measures which the respondents adopted in various spheres, acting as preventative measures against future victimisation.

a. Avoid seeking employment

As discussed in chapter 4 (Types of incidents of antisemitism) many respondents are employed within the Jewish community (only 6 respondents were employed outside of the community). R24 commented: ‘You wouldn’t find people from Stamford Hill in larger establishments. They wouldn’t be working in multinational companies or household brands’ (R24).

Some respondents tried to explain the reason that some Jews within the community remain insular:

It’s culture. The women are normally running families and usually to build careers takes a lot of dedication. It’s not something which is easy to do with such large families. They have a family orientated way of life. It might me more plausible for men. But most men in Stamford Hill are frankly not educated enough by national standards. People like myself, there are many other

264 people like myself, I probably know a lot, I am well read, I have some experience working and we are fast learners… Many people would start their own businesses and try and be a bit entrepreneurial. (R24)

I generally look for jobs in Jewish environments just because it’s easier because I don’t have to explain obvious things. We all finish early on Friday. So, I tend to focus on gaining jobs in Jewish places. As much as I want to work in non-Jewish places, it is very difficult. You can’t work on certain days and need to leave earlier. So, I do feel that I am quite separate in some respects. (R1)

These comments highlight the tight infrastructures available within the community. For some respondents, seeking employment within the community, and remaining insular, is the favoured option. It is difficult to know whether this is due to ease of access to synagogues, kosher food or the simplicity of leaving work before sunset on Fridays, or whether unconsciously this insularity is aimed at preventing further victimisation.

The comments by R24 highlight that the two paradigms of coping mechanisms can exist alongside one another, and are not mutually exclusive. R24 applied for German passports for him and his family members (long-term coping mechanism measures) and at the same time, secured a job within the Jewish community (short-term coping mechanism measures).

b. Avoid seeking education outside of the Jewish community

The cumulative negative experiences in university, had resulted in R3 choosing to withdraw from his studies. He chose not to return to that particular university, nor to apply to another. Avoiding returning to university altogether was his coping mechanism. These incidents have led R3 to remain insular:

I would always want to work in a Jewish environment. I wouldn’t go to this non–Jewish college again. Or any other non-Jewish

265 college…I would try my best to be in a Jewish environment. The best I can. You can’t always be in a Jewish environment. (R3)

For R9, the incidents he was subjected to in university, had made him cautious in returning to campus, but he did not withdraw from university:

I was quite apprehensive to start university again last year because I was aware that particularly in academia, amongst the young people, there is a lot of, I wouldn’t call it antisemitism necessarily, but there is certainly anti-Zionism. (R9)

These findings echo the work of Feagin, Hernan and Imani (1996), which reflect that American universities are often racial settings, filled with hostility towards minority students. The harm to individuals extends beyond the single incident, negatively affecting their social and academic experiences and at times, as in

R3’s case, leading to their exit or transfer (Solorzano et.al., 2000).

c. Avoid confrontation

Linked to this, was the decision of 2 of the 3 university students not to challenge the internal mechanisms of the university. They did not demonstrate ‘agency’ in terms of the way they responded to such incidents and chose not to challenge the universities. R9 expressed fear of repercussion: ‘I am not going to forward a complaint because she can make my life sour. And as she was being nicer to me, I decided to leave it’ (R9). R6 also avoided challenging his lecturer:

I chickened out. One, because I thought it was individual, not across the board. But two, because it was in the middle of the course and I had more work to do for that particular lecturer so there was a bit of self-preservation as well. I may still go back. Because that thought keeps hovering in my mind. An element of me says that I should have gone back to him. (R6)

Spalek (2006) refers to actual and potential victims who may join extremist groups that advocate the use of violence in order to defend ‘Islam’. Zempi

266 (2014) discusses the retaliatory side of unveiled Muslim victims. Interestingly, none of the participants in my data confronted the perpetrators, sought to educate the abusers, challenged their behaviour nor retaliated, neither verbally nor physically. This is in line with the contrasting roles of perpetrator and victim which have routinely been taken as a ‘given’, particularly in the context of hate crime (Chakraborti and Garland, 2012). By not retaliating, the respondents seem to entrench their roles of victims.

d. Avoid certain topics

There are a number of topics which were generally avoided by respondents at work or in social interactions with mainstream society. They included politics,

Israel and religion. Discussion of these topics were considered sensitive and risky. A number of respondents commented that they avoid any political discussions:

In the place where I work, I generally don’t discuss politics with colleagues and if I do in any way, I adapt my style of behaviour…I suppose there are various subjects which I would not launch into with someone that I don’t know, and one of those subjects is politics. Firstly, I might not feel well informed enough and I don’t sort of run around discussing religion with people. (R10)

R13 agreed that certain topics are side-stepped:

I know that when I am with non-Jewish people I am weary, in a way that I wasn’t weary before, when I talk about the fact that we are going to Israel or that my son is coming from Israel. I don’t not say it but I feel vulnerable because I don’t know what they are thinking. (R13)

This shows that some participants self-censor and are reticent to discuss certain topics in social or work settings.

e. Avoid certain places

267 At the centre of coping mechanisms among current literature, is the notion of avoidance of places. Zempi’s (2014) respondents, veiled Muslim women, referred to ‘no-go areas’, others limited their use of public travel, whilst others expressed desire to avoid leaving their own home. Within my sample, avoidance was not as broad, but there were certain instances and certain places which were avoided by a few participants. For example, R19 expressed not choosing to be in big crowds on his own, nor liking travelling on the underground by himself. He would also advise others not to travel on their own.

R11 explained that she may choose to avoid certain places depending on world-wide events. At these times, she would think twice about entering a kosher shop after seeing a Muslim lady walking into that shop, attending a

Jewish event, or sitting by the window of a kosher restaurant. These world events, she described ‘play on your insecurities and effects your every-day life’

(R11).

R28 had made a conscious choice only to fly El Al (the Israeli airlines), rather than British Airways because

At El Al, I feel at home, I feel safe, I feel liked by the people who are serving me, by the people who are checking me in. In BA, they will be very nice, the smiles will be from ear to ear, but I know inside they are just waiting for the day not to see me. (R28)

A common theme among the respondents was that among those who were victimised, some have chosen not to place themselves in the same circumstances again. The victim of attempted murder said ‘I would not sit at the top end of a bus’ (R20). The woman who experienced antisemitism in the soft play in Hackney said: ‘I promised myself that I wouldn’t go there again. But it’s a little soft play and its local, so for my kids, who knows’ (R16). The Rabbi, who

268 was verbally attacked on the train from Newcastle, said: ‘The only effect it had on me, is that if I had to travel back from Newcastle, then I would go back First

Class. I would probably be a bit nervous but that is what I would do’ (R8).

These instances reflect that some respondents would consider avoiding certain places in certain instances, but a broad-brush approach could not apply here.

f. Avoid making financial investments

From a financial aspect, one respondent avoided making certain financial investments based on his belief that antisemitism may escalate. By way of example, R8 was considering purchasing a property and consulted a knowledgeable friend who advised him not to invest in a property in Golders

Green on the basis that if antisemitism would rise further, Golders Green will become worthless, as Jews would emigrate.

In summarising this section, the level of avoidance was less prevalent than current research. Current research shows that victims of hate crime often resort to withdrawal and isolation, avoid leaving their homes, avoid specific places

(particularly public places) and negotiate their identity (Iganski, 2008; Jarman and Tennant, 2003; Tiby, 2009). The JPR (2014) also showed that approximately 40% of Orthodox Jews avoid visiting Jewish events or certain locations out of fear for their safety (compared with 26% of the non-Orthodox).

Participants within my sample, on the whole, did not resort to general avoidance from certain locations nor withdrawal. They referred to particular spheres which they may choose to avoid. However, the range of categories of avoidance behaviour reflects that the phenomenon has infiltrated their psyche to some

269 extent, that there is some level of anxiety - otherwise they would not have constrained their choice of speech or movement.

iii. Identity negotiation

An additional short-term coping mechanism is identity negotiation. Several studies have highlighted that a common risk factor for criminal victimisation is the visibility of individuals of particular minority groups (Chongatera, 2013;

Wigerfelt et al., 2014). Those who look visibly different from the majority population or those who reveal their identity are more frequently victimised than those who do not (Wallengren, 2015).

These identifying features, which accentuated their identity, have been termed by Goffman (1986) as ‘stigma symbols’. Goffman provides skin colour as a stigma symbol, as is a hearing aid, cane, shaved head, or wheelchair. An obvious Jewish symbol, that is common, is the headwear known as the kapple, which is a mark of identification. In the work of Goffman (1959) respondents experienced the kapple as a ‘stigma symbol’ (Goffman, 1959). To the world at large, a Jew is recognised due to their visual marks of identification; the kapple, the beard, the peyos (side lock), the tzizit (tassles) and the modern dress as well as the head covering worn by the female counterparts.

Victims’ responses may include toning down or possibly denying parts of their self so as to reduce the potential risk for victimisation, with the aim of leading to the ‘invisibility’ of certain identities (Spalek, 2008). As Perry and Alvi remarked (2012, p.16), targeted violence often results in a careful crafting of victims’ self-identities so that ‘they are less visible, and thus less vulnerable’.

270 Actual and potential risk victims may attempt to make themselves as ‘invisible’ as possible to try and reduce the potential for abuse (Wallengren, 2015). Some minority members choose to remove the stigma symbols, in order not to be perceived as different (Wallengren, 2015).

A recent study on Malmo Jews revealed that Malmo Jews were cautious to reveal their Jewish identity in public. Wigerfelt and Wiferfelt (2016) reflected that

Malmo Jews also experienced the wearing of a kapple as a ‘stigma symbol’.

They felt that they were often obligated to consider where and in which situations their Jewish identity could be revealed. They felt that openly revealing their Jewish identity was problematic due to the dormant threats. As a result, participants had resorted to concealing their Jewish identity and removing their kapples (Wigerfelt and Wiferfelt, 2016).

A study on Swedish Jews revealed similar findings. Nylund Skog's research

(2006, cited in Carlgren and Aress, 2006, p.11) showed that several respondents were adamant not to express their Jewishness openly, by choosing not to wear a kapple or a Star of David, of fear of victimisation.

Respondents found that in order to reveal their chosen identity, they need to act courageously (Carlgren and Aress, 2006)).

Among the sample, there were three participants who felt that it was not necessary to reveal their Jewish identity (R7, R8, R9) and there were a couple of respondents who considered lessening their Jewishness. However, the vast majority were expressive in their Jewish identity. Concealing the identity was not the choice which most respondents made within my sample. I propose that

271 the reason for this is because, unlike the Jews referred to in the study above, the participants in my study were all Orthodox Jews. Therefore, the respondents in my study, particularly the men, are blatantly visible and in order to conceal their identity, they would have to shave off their beards and cut of their peyos (side locks), which would be regarded out of the question for most.

FG19 remarked: ‘We don’t have an option (to negotiate our identity). We are too visible’ (FG19).

a. Those who concealed their Jewish identity

Of the sample, there was an awareness that, particularly when travelling on public transport, Jews should remain non-conspicuous. Rather than revealing their kapples, some discussed the option of covering their kapples with a cap or tucking their tzizit (tassels) into their trousers. R11 expressed: ‘I do see men taking off their kappels getting on the train at Hendon central but that could be for many reasons’ (R11). R13, a partner in a city law firm remarked:

Even today, there are people who are outstanding members of X (a particular shul), who come to see me and they would wear a cap to my office and then take it off at reception and they don’t wear a kapple, so it’s still there within a certain generation, that feeling that you can’t be yourself, that you can’t take your whole self into non-Jewish situations. (R13)

As an organisation, Shomrim volunteers felt that it is important to encourage others to conceal their kapple. A shomrim volunteer said: ‘I personally do not wear a cap when I go into town nor tuck my tzizit in. But I do tell other people to’ (FG16). Another Shomrim volunteer said ‘Some people do that (wear a cap).

My dad will not go out of the area without a cap’ (FG14).

One respondent was cognisant that only in exceptional circumstances, he

272 would remove his kapple: ‘I was once shopping in Wembley and I was terrified and that was the only time I thought of taking off my kapple. It was heavily

Muslim populated’ (R8).

Whilst there was a recognition that it is not uncommon for some religious Jewish men to conceal their kapples by wearing caps, only 3 participants did so themselves. The one participant who felt an urging need to conceal his identity was R7, the man who was raised as a Christian and only exposed to being

Jewish at the age of 30. He explained his choice to conceal his identity as follows:

Ok I don’t wear a kapple when I go into town, I wear a cap, so I am not immediately identifiable as a Jew. That’s probably a defence mechanism I adopted from my past, but I don’t like to be identified as anything when I am out and about... I try and preserve my identity to the outside world which is probably a weakness in terms of not having the guts to have my tzizit out and walk around freely with a kapple. I would always wear a hat. I would not go into a secular activity with obvious signs of my Jewishness. (R7)

R7 puts this need to conceal his identity down to fears engrained within him from his childhood:

I don’t want to be seen as a Jew. I’ve never loved that, I think that was my parents’ main issue. They always wanted to belong wherever they are. That was their ethos, that wherever you are, you need to belong as you are part of that country and don’t set yourself apart and join in and appreciate the culture of where you are. That was always the philosophy in our house. I don’t feel comfortable giving that up. Anonymity. I don’t want to be noticed within the crowd. (R7)

When asked what it was which prevented him from revealing his Jewish identity, he initially put it down to fear of victimisation, but then reverted from this position:

273 I am not showing my Jewish identity in the wider world, so that I won’t be targeted…It’s probably being scared. Not just being abused. It’s being categorised. I don’t want to be categorised. As I said it’s my weakness. Not confident enough or assertive enough to walk around to assert my Jewishness. I am not saying it’s the right thing. I know that I probably should. That I should be comfortable enough to do it…These days, religion doesn’t have a very good name. People don’t know, they don’t understand. They think all religions are the same. That it’s a kind of primitive thing. That’s what I used to think. So, I understand it and I can understand my parents because that it how I used to think because I went into the process. (R7)

Of the 3 participants who attempted to conceal their identity, R7, who had an untypical background, was the only one who did not have any personal experiences of victimisation and yet he resorted to concealing his Jewish identity. R9, on the other hand, felt that the incident of him being mocked during a lecture necessitated him to remove his kapple:

Half way through my first year in university, I did remove my kapple. And by the time I get on the train in Hendon Central, it’s not on my head anymore. (R9)

When asked for the reasons he had chosen to conceal his Jewish identity, R9 responded: ‘The identity is a little hidden, but that’s purely to avoid what had happened – the embarrassment and the humiliation’ (R9). However, further on in the interview, R9 unknowingly, moved the discussion to revolve around fear of future victimisation:

You get the feeling that someone is watching you. And you do see someone repeatedly looking at you. There is nothing particularly interesting about what I wear which would attract attention apart from the kapple and then you tap the guy sitting next to you and you say: what’s going, what is their problem? Do I need to make sure that I leave this university lecture hall before they do or am I going to meet someone outside? You are always on edge, unless you are in a group. (R9)

A re-emerging theme is that both R7 and R9 expressed feelings of safety upon their return to the neighbourhood: ‘Then I come here and I put on my kapple’

274 (R7). ‘It’s off, and it doesn’t get back on my head until I am back onto the same station’ (R9). Some respondents therefore felt that, when in public, it was necessary to conceal their Jewish identity in order to have a stronger sense of safety (this in turn would limit the extent to which they are able to live an openly

Jewish life). This also echoes the notion of safety within the neighbourhood.

The third participant who concealed his identity was a Rabbi, R8: ‘I sometimes put a cap on when I travel into town. I feel like that’s just what you do’ (R8). The inconsistencies in his interview quickly became apparent:

The world in London has changed within the last 3 decades, particularly in the work place and keeping Shabbos. We are much more of an accepted minority than we ever where. And you can definitely go around town with a kapple without a shadow of a doubt. (R8)

R8, described both that putting on a cap ‘is just what you do’ and also the freedom of expression which is available in London. These two comments were contradictory. He also used a religious context to support his reasoning for wearing a cap on the underground:

Chazal (the Sages) tell us that a Jew in exile is supposed to be like a sheep among 70 walls and your only form of protection is to remain non-conspicuous. I don’t believe that there is a need to stick out. I don’t think it’s necessary to advertise in the non-Jewish world that you are Jewish. (R8)

Rabbi Meir Kahane (1987) stated that ‘one who is a minority for even a relatively short period lives in constant wariness of what he says and does, in constant fear of the reaction to his words and actions on the part of the majority. What will ‘they’ say and what will ‘they’ do becomes a permanent part of the minority member's psyche (p.128). Rabbi Kahane (1987) proposed that a perfectly

Orthodox Jewish person will feel comfortable not to replicate the words and the

275 ideologies of the non-Jews. If a Jew is comfortable in their Jewishness they do not feel the need to mask, to shape who they are, just to make another person be comfortable. They would follow through with their convictions (p.128).

The small number of participants who chose to conceal their identity within my data, is inconsistent with the JPR report (2014) which found that three in five respondents avoid displaying Jewish items out of a concern that doing so might compromise their safety (p.25). I suggest that there is bound to be a difference in the expression of the Jewish identity between religious and non-religious

Jews. A secular Jew would often choose not to wear a religious symbol. A religious Jew, on the other hand, would think over and over whether he would elect to remove the religious symbol. The respondents in the JPR were mostly non-orthodox Jews (85%), explaining the large percentage of those who chose to avoid displaying religious symbols.

Female participants are slightly different, as they are not as obviously recognisable. As a Jewish woman, there are ways to avoid being recognised as being blatantly Jewish. For instance, R11, shied away from expressing her

Jewish identity:

It is very interesting why I don’t talk about being Jewish. I know that friends of mine would take in kosher food during high holidays and make a whole thing out of it. I wouldn’t. I don’t know if it’s coming from a place that I don’t want to be different, I don’t want to stand out, I don’t want to be the Jewish person. I don’t want it. I don’t know if that is psychological because of my own personal make up or whether it is British Jewish psychology, which is don’t make a noise, don’t make a fuss. So, I do try and not talk about it more… But it’s ironic to me because it is such a big part of who I am. (R11)

b. Those who attempted to ‘dress down’

276 There were some respondents who felt the need to ‘dress down’, to look ‘less’

Jewish, taking steps to limit their visibility. However, even those respondents were cognisant that these often were failed attempts. Various respondents commented:

If my husband would go out of the area, to the hospital on shabbos, my husband would not go with his chassidish levush (ultra-orthodox clothing). He would take off his Shtreimel (fur hat). He would need to be careful. There would be a certain something. He would wear his long coat but not his shtreimel. (R27)

I will be honest, sometimes you feel that if you are going to a meeting and you need to sit on a train for an hour, maybe you may want to wear an off-the-shelf jacket, than a chassidish (ultra- orthodox) long garb. Simply to draw less attention, to try and blend in. But I don’t honestly think that if I wear anything different, I will actually look any different. (R24)

I believe I look Jewish even if I don’t go with the full gear and walk around in a coloured shirt and a jacket and a cap. I still believe I stick out as a Jew. And there are situations where I feel on the contrary, that I would want you to know that I am Jewish and I want you to like it. (R28)

The notion that an Orthodox Jewish man feels that he is to some extent managing to conceal his identity is rather comical. It is almost humorous for the man, who has a beard and is dressed in a black suit and a white shirt (a typical representative of the Jewish community) to feel that by not wearing the shtreimel (fur hat), he is taking preventative measures to conceal himself. Or the man with facial hair, who boards the underground in North West London who feels that by wearing a cap he is no longer different. These attempts to limit their visibility are, even according to those who choose to ‘dress down’, failed attempts.

c. Those who were conscious in their expression of their Jewishness

277 A couple of respondents, whilst not choosing to negotiate their Jewish identity themselves, expressed that they felt limited or conscious in their expression of their Jewishness:

If the idea of diversity is that you can take your WHOLE self to work, you can’t take your whole self to work as a Jewish person. I take a lot of it to work because it’s so visible. But my numbers are what protects me. I received exceptionally good numbers this year – so who really is going to threaten me. But I actually feel deep down that if I get to that stage that I don’t have such good years, that I might get a rougher ride. (R13)

I don’t think that I have to shy away but yes sometimes if I get to a big crowd of non-Jewish people, I think it would be of use if my peyos (side-locks) were hidden. They just shout out: yes, I am Jewish. I definitely feel lost sometimes and scared. I am not sure what this person or that person is going to do. (R19)

These statements show that there is awareness, even among those who do not conceal their identity, that they are conscious in their expression of their

Jewishness.

d. Those who chose to stress their Jewish identity

On the whole, when respondents were asked during interviews whether they have felt the need to conceal their Jewishness, most respondents were offended by the possibility of doing so: ‘Absolutely not’ (R6), ‘I don’t feel I need to shy away. The opposite. I used to be that way but I’ve become more proud of my Jewish identity. I walked around Europe in my kapple’ (R5), ‘I would not wear a baseball cap’ (R24), ‘I have always been extremely public about my

Judaism and it has never been an issue’. (R21). Others commented:

I am strong, I am idealistic. I am fiercely, fiercely Jewish. You can be Jewish, you can properly Jewish and you can be fiercely Jewish. And I belong to that category. And therefore I have never compromised. (R15)

It doesn’t bother me (that we are different), that’s who I am. I just want to show them that we are normal. I think my husband feels

278 a bit more conscious with his beard and his hat and his white socks rolled up but I always tell them that everyone else walks around how they want so why are we not entitled to? (R25)

My experience is that if I am proud to be Jewish and express my Jewishness, other people would respect me more. My experience shows me that. I would tell the boys: yes, wear a kapple, yes show that you are Jewish. I think that if we show that we are not embarrassed to be Jewish, we will suffer less. Logic dictates to hide your identity but our history has proven over and over again that when we did that, it didn’t help at all. (FG6)

Some of the respondents who were attacked on a larger scale were not prepared to change their appearance. R20, the victim of attempted murder said:

‘I wouldn’t change my appearance at all – hat, beard and the like’ (R20). R12, the man who was attacked by men wearing balaclavas, said:

Not at all. No. In fact, I get annoyed. A comedian put a cartoon saying kapple off on this stop and kapple on in the next stop. It was a poster. It annoyed me more than anything else. I actually found it stupid. I know people do it, people wear caps, people wear hats… I only wear a kapple. (R12)

There were also respondents who were comfortable to expose their Jewish identity in a more blatant way. R26 prays in public places if the need arises:

I will put on my Talis (fringed garment) and Tefilin (phylacteries) and people around me will think what is he doing. I don’t have a problem with that. I would feel a little tiny bit conscious. But you know what, last time I travelled from Israel to England was a Muslim and he was praying on the floor of the plane. And I said to myself if he can do that, why can’t I do that? But I would never tuck in my tzizit (tassles). (R26)

Seul (1999) discussed the inherent need by all of us to attain a secure sense of identity. He stated the when individuals place effort to achieve a sense of connection or belonging, it helps people establish and maintain positive, secure identities (Bloom, 1990; Breakwell, 1986). The contrary is also true. Absence of a secure identity, according to Bloom (1990), results in negative psychological issues (Bloom, 1990). Therefore, choosing to remain visible as a

279 Jew, may actually have positive effects, perhaps not on levels of safety, but on securing a sense of identity.

In summarising this section on identity negotiation, the data showed that

Orthodox Jewish individuals wear stigmatised symbols which makes them stand out as different and which enhances their risk of victimisation. Yet, the majority of respondents chose not to conceal their identity as Jews, but rather chose to remain visible as a Jew. The JPR (2014) summarised this enigma succinctly:

Britain would note an increase in self-confidence among British Jews in recent decades, evidenced by the growing number of kippot (kapples) worn in public places and the prominence of major Jewish events and rallies in the public sphere. In essence, antisemitism in Britain remains rather a conundrum. It continues to be one of the top issues on the Jewish communal agenda, and efforts to combat it generate substantial funding. At the same time, British Jews have arguably never before been so confident about their Jewishness, and so open about displaying it in public. (JPR, p.8)

6.4 Victimhood

Furedi (2006) writes of a growing culture of victimhood as if victimhood is something for which everyone is clamouring. The views of the participants in this study do not support the idea that victimhood is somehow desirable or sought-after. First, the respondents did not appear to consider themselves to be victims during interviews. On the whole, they were quite resilient and robust in the recounting of their incidents. Second, the respondents did not actually utter the words ‘victim’ or ‘victimisation’. The notion of victimisation seems to be understated in the data. The question of ‘why’ needs to be asked. I propose that there are four possibilities as to the reason that victimisation is understated in the data.

280

First, respondents may not wish to be labelled as victims. Labelling the person as victim ‘disables that person to the extent that victim statues appropriates one’s personal identity as a competent efficacious actor. Thus, describing a person as victim can debilitate that person in the minds of others as they interpret ongoing activities through the victim framework’ (Holstein and Miller,

1990, pp.105). Dunn (2007) points out that some people chose not to be labelled as victim as the word ‘victim’ is perceived to have undertones of weakness and vulnerability. This could be important in understanding the reason behind respondents often disregarding and downplaying antisemitic victimisation as a means of managing the hurt. Perhaps, to feel the intensity of the event and its implications, would place them into a very vulnerable and extremely sensitive position.

Second, it may be that respondents omitted to utter the words ‘victims’ or

‘victimisation’ out of fear that they would not be given a victim-status recognition. As referenced in the literature review, not all victims are prescribed with the victim label. Victims need to engender sufficient compassion among the public to achieve ‘victim status’. A failure by authorities to recognise the respondents as victims would be calamitous for the respondents and perhaps they were choosing to avoid being adversely effected.

Third, it may be that Orthodox Jewish individuals, due to their strong community ties and religious background, are in some way more resilient to hate crime.

Gilligan (2000) defines resilience as ‘the capacity to do well despite adverse experience’ (Gilligan, 2000, p.37). Much research on resilience has been

281 focused on the ‘dynamic process whereby individuals show adaptive functioning in the face of significant adversity’ (Schoon, 2006, p.6). Bowling

(1999) and Karlsen (2007) highlight the importance of context in understanding victimization; not all targeted groups will necessarily experience victimization in the same way. Also, not all people within those groups will experience it in the same way either; ‘People respond to racist experiences in different ways’

(Karlsen, 2007, p.58). Noelle’s (2009) writing on homophobic crimes in the US, suggests that the impact of such victimization depends on facts such as

‘context, individual history, personality, and interpretation of events’ (Noelle,

2009, p.93).

Some studies have looked into whether Jewish people, due to centuries of persecution, have certain internal resources which they bring to their encounters with stressful life events. Research shows that from a young age, it is common for Jewish (Israeli) youths to experience some form of antagonism, to become skilled in processing it and to be supported by family members (Dor-

Shav, 1990). According to the study of Leets, ‘Jews, as a group, are better equipped than homosexuals, to deal with prejudice and discrimination’ (Leets,

2002, p.346).

Fourth, it may be that the available option of emigrating distances them from labelling themselves as victims. Perhaps it is the knowledge that they can always move to Israel if the need arose which gives them comfort. R14 expressed: ‘Only because I have a choice to leave. That’s why I don’t get so hacked up about it’. FG6 expressed: ‘I think that people are saying at the back

282 of their mind that worse comes to worse, we would move to Israel’ (FG6). They are aware that they have a ‘get-out clause’ if necessary.

Having suggested four reasons as to why victimisation seems to be understated in the data, it can be argued that by respondents retracting back to their community, by seeking education and employment within the community, they may actually be playing out victimisation unknowingly. They may have chosen not to be labelled as victims but by maintaining their insularity, they may be making choices which are victim-like. Therefore, it should be noted that one cannot reach the conclusion that victimisation is not there merely because it is not in the data. Elision of the word may contribute to keeping the status of victimisation away from them.

In summarising this section, Walklate (2012) reminds that ‘the victim is a human agent who can adopt an active as well as a passive role in response to their experiences of criminal victimization’ (Walklate, 2012, p.176). It has been known for some time that it is extremely difficult to predict which individual victim will suffer which effects and to what extent (Shapland et al., 1985). Peoples’ individual domestic circumstances and other life events clearly affect the severity of reaction to victimisation (Maguire, 1980) but there seems to be personality or other individual differences which also come into play. I propose that it is the repertoire of religious and social cohesion which allows them to be more resilient. Perhaps it is the close community ties and the knowledge that they have another home, which allows them not to be entangled into a victim label.

283 6.5 Conclusion

The chapter has revealed that the main coping mechanism which respondents have adopted was to normalise the incidents. Their experiences have not effected their life in any significant way. On the whole, the chapter showed that respondents have not withdrawn, nor strictly avoided certain places, nor negotiated their appearance. We have seen hate crimes being a process. The process of victimisation continues with victims adopting certain coping mechanisms which subsequently shape their life. I propose that this act of normalisation shows agency, a form of resistance, not to allow the abuse to escalate by having to take further actions. By choosing to normalise their victimisation, they are choosing not to let the victimisation linger.

This chapter, in answering ‘what coping mechanisms are currently being adopted in response to the rise in antisemitism by the Orthodox Jewish community’, illuminated that the reasons respondents were able to show resistance and to accept the incidents, is due to their strong religious identity and their close community ties. These factors allow them to hold onto the conviction that their lives have meaning, that there is a sense of belonging.

Their strong Jewish identity and social cohesion gives them the security and strength not to stagnate.

The next chapter will discuss the extent of antisemitic incident reporting and the perceptions which respondents have of the agencies which respond to antisemitism.

284 CHAPTER 7: UNDER-REPORTING AND PERCEPTIONS OF AGENCIES

7.1 Introduction

This chapter will address the final research question of ‘To what extent did

Orthodox Jews report antisemitic incidents and what were their perceptions about the agencies which respond to antisemitism?’ Chapter 4, on the types of incidents which respondents are subjected to, illuminated the prevalence of victimisation among the Orthodox Jewish community and Chapter 6 revealed the low reporting rates of those incidents. The government’s latest Hate Crime

Action Plan was published in July 2016, and acknowledged that ‘antisemitism has not always been taken as seriously as other hate crimes in some parts of our society’ (Home Office, Action Against Hate: The UK Government’s plan for tackling hate crime, July 2016). This chapter explores both parts of the last research question. In answering the first part of the research question, this chapter will explore the approach adopted by the Orthodox Jewish community to reporting antisemitic incidents and the reasons behind respondents making certain reporting choices. It will also address the second part of the research question by illuminating whether respondents feel that the primary organisations which are in place (namely, the Police, CST and Shomrim) respond to victims of antisemitism appropriately as well as what influenced their preferences as to which organisation they chose to report to.

The main theme permeating across this part of my research was the extent of underreporting among the Orthodox Jewish community. Low reporting levels of hate crime have been recorded (Chakraborti, 2009; CSEW, 2014) and

‘antisemitism is no exception’ (Derby, 2017, p.3). An exceedingly small number of participants turned to any of the organisations following an incident. Within

285 my sample, only 5 incidents were reported to the police. Of those 5 incidents,

4 victims personally reported those incidents (R5, R12, R16 and R19).

Members of the public must have reported the 5th incident (R20) as the victim became unconscious and was subsequently hospitalised. The small number of those who chose to report the incident is consistent with the landscape of underreporting (ACPO, 2009).

Aside from reporting any antisemitic incidents to the police, members of the

Jewish community are able to access both the CST and Shomrim, both of which would provide them with some degree of support. Within the sample, only 2 respondents chose to report their victimisation to the CST, whereas not a single respondent reported their incident to Shomrim. This is in line with previous comments made by CST and Shomrim with CST commenting that it is ‘likely that there is significant underreporting of antisemitic incidents to both CST and the Police’ (CST Incidents Report 2016, p.5) and Shomrim Stamford Hill

‘believes the incidents [they recorded] are only the tip of the iceberg’ (Doherty,

2016).

The chapter will illuminate that due to the natural affiliation which individual members of the Orthodox community have towards Shomrim, Shomrim needs to be engaged in a different way than they are being presently. By extracting from the data what is lacking on a local level, certain opportunities for future development can be identified.

7.2 THE POLICE

In the last two decades the police have been required to cultivate a far more

286 inclusive stance towards hate crime and a host of policies, programmes and initiatives have been established (ACPO, 2005).

Special attention has also been given to improving responses to antisemitic offences. Prior to the All Parliamentary Party Inquiry into Antisemitism and the

35 recommendations which ensued by the government, only a minority of police forces within the UK had facilities to record antisemitic attacks. The APPG

Against Antisemitism Inquiry of 2006 ‘served as a wakeup call to many stakeholders’ (Hoffman, 2015), leading to one of the most vital changes of the recording of antisemitic incidents. Since the 2006 Inquiry, there has been an agreement by all police forces to record antisemitic hate crimes, providing for greater transparency. Since then, UK’s approach to fighting antisemitism has improved manifold. The report of the 2015 All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into

Antisemitism praised the ‘significant degree of work being undertaken to address antisemitism by the UK and devolved governments, Parliament, legal authorities and civil society’ (All Party Parliamentary Group Against

Antisemitism, 2016, p.37).

My view is that the police play a crucial role in ensuring that the future of hate crime progresses in the right direction. Society relies on the police, not merely to collect data, but also to implement current legislation. ‘The fundamental purpose of the police is to prevent and detect crime’ (Police and Crime Plan

2017-2021, p.26). Setting aside other voluntary organisations, it the police who has the official status of being the primary liaison between the legal system and the victims or communities. Their response to victims, their treatment of victims

287 and giving the victims the sense that their plight is meaningful and significant, is crucial in ensuring trust.

In order for the police to fulfil their duties suitably, there needs to be public approval of their existence and actions. Members of the public need to trust that the police have their best interests at heart. There is a historic tradition that ‘the police is the public and that the public is the police’ (Peel, 1829, cited in Durham

Constabulary, no date). Sophie Linden, Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, stated in Police and crime plan 2017-2021, that ‘the British system of policing by consent is dependent on the support of the public. People who have trust and confidence in the police are more likely to cooperate with the police and comply with the law’ (Mayor of London, 2017, p. 15). Indeed, several studies have confirmed a link between trust in the police and the willingness of the public to cooperate (Cherney and Chui, 2008; Murphy and Cherney, 2010;

Tyler, 2011).

However, it is known that many victims of hate crime choose not to report their victimisation to the police (Home Office, 2015). We shall first delve into the respondents who chose to access the services afforded to them by the police and their experiences in communicating with the police. Subsequently, we will examine those who chose not to access the services available and the reasons behind them not doing so.

The most predominant theme relating to this section was the extent of underreporting of antisemitic incidents to the police, or for that matter, to any other organisation (CST, 2017). When examining the participants who

288 accessed the police services, only four participants personally reported their experiences to the police (R5, R12, R16 and R19). A member of the public, presumably, must have made the 5th report, on behalf of R20 who faced a near- death incident. R20 remarked ‘It was public news. The same day. It was on the local paper. They came to me. I didn’t seek them out’ (R20). By deduction therefore the large number of underreported victimisation, is in line with current research, which highlights the sheer extent of hate crime incidents which go unreported (Home Office, 2015).

The extent of underreporting of hate crimes is significant. The CSEW shows that 43% of hate crime offences are not reported to the police (CSEW, 2014).

Various reasons were put forward in section 2.2 as to the reasons victims of hate crime chose not to report their victimisation to the police. Without rehashing the data (outlined in section 2.2), suffice to summarise that victims are 1. Concerned of double victimisation by the police not taking their case seriously (Perry, 2001), 2. Of the emotional difficulties in retelling the incident

(Chakraborti, Garland and Hardy, 2014), and 3. That lack of confidence in the police has resulted in under reporting (Clancy et al., 2001).

This chapter will illuminate that there is an added component to participants not choosing to report. In line with the notion of normalisation, my addition to existing research is that Orthodox Jewish respondents chose not to report as a continuation of the normalisation examined in section 6.2; that being victimised is part of the life of an Orthodox Jew and that reporting the incident would only serve to prolong the victimisation. This is consistent with research conducted by the Leicester Hate Crime Project which found that hate crime victims

289 experienced their victimisation as ‘a routine reality of being different, as opposed to an incident in need of reporting’ (Chakraborti, 2015a, p.5).

The small number of incidents which were reported is also consistent with research which demonstrates low reporting rates specifically within the

Orthodox Jewish community. As referred to in the literature review (section

2.2.2), Iganski, in giving oral evidence to the Report of the All Parliamentary

Inquiry into Antisemitism (quoted in the All Parliamentary Group Against

Antisemitism, 2015, p.42) stated that numerous visibly Jewish individuals chose not to report the abuse and that from a group of 50 visibly Jewish individuals,

Iganski (All Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, 2015) calculated four times the number of incidents which the CST reported within a year. The low reporting rates among the Orthodox Jewish community is also consistent with the UK government’s plan for tackling hate crime which found that ‘stakeholders have reported that Jewish people from the Charedi (Orthodox) community are less likely than other sections of the Jewish community to report hate crimes to the authorities or to our partners such [as] the CST)’ (Action against Hate, 2016, p.31).

For these four particular respondents, calling the police, was the first port of call. R5 commented: ‘I called the police straight away’. R5 explained that he called the police because ‘I didn’t want him to get away with it. R12 commented:

‘That (calling the police) was my first response’ (R12). R19 also reported that ringing the police was his first port of call: ‘During the gas canister incident,

‘whilst they were shouting at us, I took the registration number of them and I

290 started reporting it to the police and then they threw the canister out of the car’

(R19). R16’s awareness of the importance to use the data, was apparent:

I developed an idea that one should do what they can. Exercise every possibility of your rights. That would be contacting the police... I think I just wanted it on record. I think it’s important that we act together. Social movement works. These sort of things. I think doing these things, being part of reporting, is in some way an act of response. (R16)

The importance of reporting has been remarked on by the previous Secretary of State of Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid, who said that: ‘if we report every incident of hate crime, we can drive it from our streets’ (Action

Against Hate 2016, p.1). I have found no research which evidences the causal link between increasing reporting and reduction of hate crime. There is a significant body of research which explores the reporting behaviours of hate crime victims, and increasing reporting may increase funding and available resources. However, I found no literature to show that crime will be reduced if reporting increases. There is research, as referred to in the literature review, which illustrates that reporting incidents of interpersonal violence, theft and burglaries to the police is associated with fewer future victimisation

(Ranapurwala, 2016). The authors attribute this partly to police action of arresting and conviction of offenders. The study also highlights that ‘reporting to the police improves seeking of mental and physical health services by victims, which may also reduce the potential for subsequent victimisation’

(Ranapurwala, 2016, p.9).

An apparent theme relating to the reporting of incidents to the police was that three of the four most serious incidents from the data were reported to the police

(R12, R19, R20 – R8 did not report to the police). This is in line with current

291 research which highlights that the severity or seriousness of the crime is the primary factor influencing a victim's decision to contact the police. The more serious incidents would be most likely to be reported (Felson et al., 2002).

On the whole however, there was a general expression of dissatisfaction with the way the police handled their respective cases. The reasons for this varied.

Some participants highlighted the faint prospect of the police detaining the perpetrators. R5 (whom, whilst driving was chased after by a couple of men making Nazi salutes and shouting at him) remarked:

I gave the police my car registration. They (the police) said they would knock on my door and whatever, and there was no real result after that. But they couldn’t get them, and that was it, they closed the investigation. (R5)

R16, who had an upsetting interaction in a children’s soft play area, felt that the police officer did not take her case seriously. R16 said:

‘The police officer I met didn’t seem to take me seriously at all. He said I can’t see what I mean – it wasn’t personal. I think the point that they were looking for specific Jewish names was very personal…bottom line that there was no evidence. There was no CCTV. It was my word against theirs. So ultimately it wasn’t going to get anywhere. I would have liked the police to go in, to inquire and to take me seriously and not just to brush it off. I knew it wasn’t going to lead to anything seriously but if it was possible in some way that it would lead to some warning of some kind. (R16)

R12, who was attacked by two men wearing balaclavas, remarked: ‘The police didn’t find enough information to have to catch them’ (R12). When asked whether he rang CST, he responded that he did but he did not find them useful.

As for Shomrim, they did not exist at the time and were set up partly because of this particular attack.

A head of Jewish studies in a primary school, FG7, felt that on a street level,

292 the police were very weak:

There were people taking photos from a let property from across the road of the school. When we called the police, they came, didn’t care and often told us off for calling them for nothing. (FG7)

An evolving theme was that among those who chose to access the services provided by the police, there was a general disappointment at the handling of the case as the offenders were not apprehended nor charged and with the police not taking the case seriously. Choudhury and Fenwick (2011) remark that the trust and confidence in the police and the criminal justice system have been undermined in cases where Islamophobic victimisation was not taken seriously by the police. The respondents in my data did not go as far as expressing outright lack of confidence or trust in the police, but they did express disappointment that some incidents did not progress further. Contrary to relations between the police and Muslims, which is strained (Mythen et al.,

2009), there was respect for the police as an institution among the respondents.

Moving on to explore the incidents which were not reported, the reasons for choosing not to report varied. R19 described that, despite being the victim of antisemitism two or three times a week, he did not report the incidents to the police. He recounted past negative experiences from the police which had led him to question the purpose of reporting his incidents of victimisation:

Most of the time I just ignore it… I know that if I call the police than almost definitely nothing is going to happen, it’s not going to help me much…I also have a different story which I also reported to the police and unfortunately to date, nothing has happened. The police have told me they were going to see to it and do something about it but I haven’t heard anything. (R19)

293 Charges were brought against the offenders who threw gas canisters on R19, and a conviction followed. Yet, despite the conviction, R19 felt that there was no definable purpose in reporting to the police. R19 continued to state:

Nothing against the police, but if I would be a policeman and someone would report to me something which I clearly know my lack of powers or lack of courts powers to do it, how seriously would I take it?! And that is exactly what is happening. It’s not just on antisemitism, it’s also with burglary. If you are burgled, the police take a crime report and you would never hear from them. Because even if they manage to catch the offender nothing much would happen to them. (R19)

R19 was of the feeling that the police themselves know that the offender would not be detained nor convicted. In his opinion, officers themselves have little confidence in the system and would therefore not pursue the offender with resolve.

Other than being disappointed with the police that certain incidents were not followed up by them, R19 also emphasised that the courts lack powers to penalise the offender proportionally. For R19 on the whole, the central reason for choosing not to report, was the little confidence which he had in the Justice system.

The data suggested that a number of factors could be attributed to the low levels of reporting. Some of the respondents felt that reporting these incidents would not prevent them from reoccurring. Other participants commented that they could not see a reason to report the incident. Yet other respondents claimed that these incidents were not serious enough to merit the police’s attention.

These reasons replicate the comments of the respondents who chose to report, indicating that the same reservations were sensed by those who chose to report

294 and those who chose not to report. These findings, as referenced in the literature review, are also in line with current research which highlight that there is generally a widespread dissatisfaction with the handling of hate crime cases by the police (Chakraborti, 2015).

From the data, charges were brought in only two of the incidents, which were then followed by convictions (R19, R20). This small number of charges is also in line with current research which shows that the number of police charges of antisemitic crimes is low. New research shows that the number of antisemitic crimes recorded by police increased by 14.9 per cent in 2016 (Smith, 2017).

Yet, the number of charges fell ‘drastically’ – with alleged perpetrators charged in less than a tenth of cases (Smith, 2017). Fewer offenders of antisemitism are being prosecuted therefore there are fewer convictions.

Most recently, the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), due to the refusal by the CPS to prosecute, brought two private prosecutions, both of which had led to convictions. The first was the case of Jeremy Bedford-Turner, a Neo-Nazi leader, who organised a demonstration in 2015 against the ‘Jewification’ of

Golders Green (this was the anti-Shomrim march referred to in Chapter 4). The

CPS had blocked his prosecution for two years, leading the CAA into applying for Judicial Review, which culminated in the CPS having to reverse its decision not to prosecute. On 14 May 2018, after minutes of deliberating by the Jury, he was unanimously convicted of incitement to racial hatred and was sentenced to 12 months’ custodial sentence. Gideon Falter, Chairman of CAA, said ‘the

CPS seems to demonstrate such incompetence in dealing with cases of

295 antisemitism… with… dismally few prosecutions of antisemites in Britain every year’ (Campaign Against Antisemitism, 2018).

The second was also a recent conviction (14 June 2018) of Alison Chabloz, a musician who released three YouTube videos of self-written antisemitic songs characterising Auschwitz as a ‘theme park’ and the Holocaust as the

‘Holohoax’. She was sentenced to a 20 months’ custodial sentence

(suspended). This case too started as a private prosecution brought by CAA after the CPS failed to act. It was only as a result of winning the Judicial Review in the case of Bedford-Turner, which led the CPS to agree to take over the prosecution of Alison Chabloz.

These two private prosecutions are of concern and put into question the willingness of the CPS to bring about prosecutions of antisemitic hate crime.

The minimal number of antisemitic prosecutions is in line with the small number of prosecutions of religious hate crimes generally (Home Office, 2015). By way of example, there were 3,254 police reports of religious hate crime in 2014-15 in the UK. Of those, only 665 were prosecuted and of those, 557 were successful. This figure shows that only 17% of the incidents reported resulted in convictions (Home Office, 2015). It is also in line with a recent study of police forces conducted by the HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, which reported that the Metropolitan police were ‘failing victims of crime’ (Collier, 2017). This study detailed that fewer arrests are being made and that crimes are effectively being

‘written off’. According to the CPS Victim and Witness Satisfaction Survey

(2015) victims of hate crime were less likely to be satisfied with the final charges than the overall average. Figures such as these would only have the effect of

296 victims justifying their non-reporting by feeling that there is no purpose to be served in reporting.

The Home Office made a commitment to ‘publicise successful prosecutions to encourage people to have the confidence that when they report hate crime, action will be taken’ (Action against Hate 2016, p.10). The limited number of prosecutions only reinforces the notion that reporting is purposeless. Rather, the government should demonstrate a causal relationship between high rates of reporting and reduced levels of hate crime. If it can be shown that higher rates of reporting can reduce levels of hate crimes, victims of hate would have an incentive to come forward. Or perhaps, more importantly, the emphasis should be on how to foster this sense of safety and security within the community. Reporting incidents may be part of fostering this sense of security, but there are other factors such as community cohesion and being given a voice on a public policy level that would increase their sense of security.

Thus far, it is the failure on behalf of the police, which has been discussed in understanding the reasons behind participants non-reporting. However, there were other reasons which the participants put forward to explain the reasons behind them not reporting. A focus group participant, FG14, outlined the reason he thinks there is an opposition to rely on the police:

I think there is a sentiment that comes from the Holocaust. I think people over the age of 50 will not call the police no matter what. Because their parents basically told them, don’t trust a police officer. I know that my grandparents told my parents not to call them (the police). Because they are the people who kicked them out. So, my grandmother says that the police officers are the people who put them on the train and kicked them out the house. I don’t think you can say the same thing with anyone under the age of 40. (FG14)

297 Perhaps the religious dispersion, combined with the history of antisemitic persecution, has led to an ingrained reluctance to turn to the authorities, apart from in extreme cases.

Another reason which was put forward for not reporting is the apparent lack of training regarding antisemitic incidents within the police force. FG19, a shomrim volunteer, spoke to a police operator who was not aware of what a swastika was nor its offensive elements. R19 elaborated:

I think there is a lack of education within the police…He said: ‘I think all officers should be trained with this definition’… I sent him the link from the College of Policing because they have it in their Hate crime guide. It’s in the police guide. It’s there, it’s just not being taught. (FG19)

This comment shows that perhaps officers are not fully versed with what antisemitism is and specialist training is required within the police force to identify and charge suspects in antisemitic incidents.

A further theme which emerged was that unlike the general Jewish British population (Sweiry, 2014), there was not a wide appreciation of the importance of reporting incidents to the police among the Orthodox Jewish community. The importance of collecting data was infrequently referred to. Or perhaps there was an appreciation of collating data but respondents chose not to act upon it.

Perhaps, the choice not to report may not be about the shortcomings of the police. As briefly mentioned above, it may be an extension of the notion of normalisation, which had been discussed in chapters 4, 5 and 6. By choosing not to report, the participants might be aiming to control the hurt and continue to play down the incident. Christie (2008) had commented that:

298 Help might also increase your troubles. Help helps define you as weak and vulnerable. In addition…being given the status of being a victim might increase the suffering and slow down the healing process. (Christie, 2008, p.19)

Perhaps not reporting is a continuation of the process of normalisation and by choosing not to report, by choosing not to utter their victimisation to official organisations, they are choosing not to let the genie out of the bottle. This notion of normalisation and therefore choosing not to report, is akin to the incidents discussed in chapter 6 (coping mechanisms) whereby university students chose not to challenge their victimisation by accessing the university’s internal complaints procedure or the employees who did not challenge their respective employers. A common thread running among most of the respondents was this notion of acceptance and not challenging the victimisation.

As a researcher, I believe that not reporting and choosing to normalise the incidents, was not a sense of helplessness and powerlessness in the face of hostility, I propose that it was the contrary. I propose that respondents felt a sense of strength among its close-knit community. Respondents felt secure and confident within their community and felt that matters could be largely handled within. It was the climate of safety within the neighbourhood which lead respondents to accept these incidents. This phenomenon might be interpreted to indicate that personal measures of acceptance to avert victimisation were viewed as the best response.

Regardless of whether respondents were coming from a position of strength, or a position of vulnerability, in the context of their historical and religious background (as discussed in chapter 5 on Perceptions) it can be considered

299 futile to report these incidents. If, as the respondents viewed, antisemitism is in fact inevitable, there would be no purpose served in reporting the incidents.

Perhaps unknowingly, part of the reason respondents did not report the incident is because of their belief that antisemitism was unescapable and could never be eradicated.

The data also showed the importance of the personal association to the police officer and the trust which follows when the police officer himself or herself, is

Jewish. FG10, a Jewish chief inspector, who referred to the times when he was a police officer related:

There were a number of situations where I had gone to court because members of the community preferred me rather than someone else. Not necessarily because they knew me but because I had a name – I was the Jew in the village… What I found was that members of the community did prefer, not in all circumstances, but that if they wanted to report something then to come to me. Maybe they felt more of a connection, I don’t know. Or maybe they were getting something different to what they would elsewhere...I’ve had some police officer calling me saying I’m with this particular member of the public and they are busy quoting your name and saying to me that they will only talk to you. (FG10)

This idea, that there is comfort in sharing the information with those who are of the same ilk, is similar to the notion of safety in space, discussed in section 5.3, subsection 5. It resonates here because it is the sense of familiarity which allows respondents to disclose the victimisation. The personal association highlights that matters, as much as possible, are largely addressed privately within the community or within community members. Perhaps it is in fact the isolated community culture which leads participants not to report, as they do not feel a natural affiliation towards other organisations.

300 In summarising this section, it was apparent that only a few participants chose to report their victimisation to the police. The large majority of participants chose not to report the incidents they were subjected to to the police and provided a multiplicity of reasons for choosing not to. The systematic non-reporting demonstrates clearly how infrequently Orthodox Jewish participants look beyond the community’s own infrastructure and use external agencies.

Moreover, it also points that the viability of police and communal statistics need to be considered with caution. They seem to present a glimpse of the pervasiveness of antisemitic incidents in the lives of the Orthodox Jewish community.

7.3 CST

The analysis above puts forward various reasons to explain the reasons some participants chose to report the antisemitic incidents they were subjected to the police but largely, it explains their reasons for choosing not to report to the police. Turning to explore reporting rates to the CST, the CST attempts to reach out to the Orthodox Jewish community. Frequently, posters are distributed in

Jewish communal organisations, urging members to seek the support of the

CST. CST volunteers patrol the neighbourhoods of NW11 and Stamford Hill on the Sabbaths and on High Holidays. The analysis below will nonetheless show that, by and large, there was resistance to accessing the services offered by the CST.

Of all the respondents, only two participants reported their incidents to the CST

(R8 and R5). R8, who was abused on the train from Newcastle, initially contacted British Transport Police. He did not receive a response from them.

301 He therefore decided to access the services of the CST, as an advisory body.

He was grateful for the support he received from the CST. R8 stated that an employee of the CST wrote a strong letter on his behalf to British Transport

Police. They wrote back saying they will look into the matter. Even though R8 had never heard from them again, he was appreciative of the support he received from the CST.

R5 had different intention in contacting the CST. It was important for R5 to have his incident recorded. R5 stated:

I called the police and later on I reported it to the CST… My purpose was to have it recorded. I called it a serious incident because they were chasing me. (R5)

R13 recognised that the incident her daughter witnessed ought to be reported:

‘My overall feeling was, have you told CST, which she hasn’t at that point. We haven’t talked about it since… I thought that it should form part of their statistics’

(R13).

Most respondents, despite being fully aware of the services which CST offers, did not even consider reporting to the CST. R22 commented that ‘It’s so interesting, because it completely did not cross my mind that there was such a thing that I needed to do (report the incident to the CST)’ (R22).

This resonates with the material mentioned above (section 7.2), which showed the awareness of the importance to report among the non-Orthodox Jews. The small number of participants who contacted the CST is consistent with the research of Sweiry (2014) who found that among the Orthodox Jewish communities in London, no respondent expressed a willingness to report their

302 victimisation to the CST. Sweiry (2014) noted that dissimilar to the Orthodox

Jewish community, there was an understanding of the importance of reporting the incidents to the CST, particularly among the secular and reform Jewish communities (Sweiry, 2014).

Figures from the CST are often used as a yardstick for measuring antisemitism.

The large number of non-reporting to the CST by the participants, is a reflection that statistics of CST do not echo the constant and regular prevalence of antisemitic incidents in the lives of the Orthodox community. The statistics may reflect the victimisation of the secular British Jewish population as a whole, but do not encompass the victimisation of individuals from the Orthodox Jewish community. Inaccurate information on the actual number of incidents may lead to the misallocation of funds. Lack of awareness as to the prevalence of victimisation among the Orthodox Jewish community would mean that funding would not be distributed proportionally.

It is important to note that the attitudes to the efficacy and purpose of the CST varied significantly among respondents. A number of respondents referred to them in positive terms: FG4 stated: ‘We are very happy for CST to come in, even in the Orthodox community. And what they are doing is appreciated’

(FG4). However, on the whole, the CST’s effectiveness was questioned. Most respondents felt that their presence is a deterrent on a small scale and provides some level of reassurance, but that their abilities to protect the Orthodox Jewish community on a larger scale, are inadequate.

The option of turning to the CST in cases of antisemitism, as was the position

303 of turning to the police, was an option which was very rarely pursued. Even though both options were seldomly followed, there was recognition that it is the police who are in a position of power and they had the ability to bring the offender to justice (R11, R14, R7). Most respondents did not perceive CST to have the necessary protective measures in place in cases of antisemitism or against large scale terrorism (R13, R22, R11, R14).

A differentiation was made between the CST volunteers in the two neighbourhoods. The data revealed that CST volunteers who patrol NW

London are largely secular Jews, whereas the CST volunteers, in Stamford Hill are not Jewish. Second, that CST volunteers are scarce in Stamford Hill.

Regarding the CST volunteers who patrol the streets of Stamford Hill, R16 stated:

I don’t know how hands-on the CST are. But they did want the government to tender security across the schools and synagogue and I kind of rely on that. You see security around. Not that they look armed or particularly brilliant, they are all foreign and I do worry that it would take them that second longer to pick up a message really because of language difficulties. They are all Eastern European and they talk amongst themselves. It does make you feel that it will take them that second longer. (R16)

Another view put forward was that the CST might dramatize and accentuate the incident. Some remarked that they tend to inflate the need to raise security levels. R26 stated: ‘I believe that when the CST puts these big papers up saying

‘Do you feel that there are antisemitic attacks? I feel that they are making trouble’ (R26). R12 remarked:

Ok, they provide security to buildings and they did work with the government apparently regarding security and other things which they apparently do. But I am not impressed. Sometimes they do too much. I think they go overboard with what they do.

304 By far, the most pressing reason for choosing not to report to the CST was the fact that the Orthodox Jews do not associate themselves with the CST.

Respondents, in general, felt that the CST does not represent the Orthodox

Jewish community and although the government views CST as the umbrella organisation which represents the general Jewish population, respondents felt that the CST is not actually catering for the Orthodox Jewish section of the community. Respondents stated that whilst the government has been supporting the Jewish community financially, the CST, which has been given the task to distribute the funds among the Jewish community, has not been distributing the finances fairly to the Orthodox section of the community (FG16,

FG8, R24).

An apparent theme which emerged when analysing data relating to the CST, is that the Orthodox Jewish community see themselves separate to the general

British Jewish population. There was a tone of isolation and segregation among the participants in reaching out to the services of the CST. It is apparent that the CST, whilst doing invaluable work, is reaching out to the general British

Jewish community. The consensus on the whole, is that the Orthodox Jewish community does not associate itself with the CST. The Orthodox Jewish community do not feel aligned with the CST nor have a natural affiliation towards them. Perhaps if there had been an Orthodox Jewish representative working within the CST with a position of trust, the Orthodox Jewish community would be more likely to be drawn to the organisation. Having Orthodox Jewish individuals working for the CST would mean that there would be a natural affiliation towards the organisation and it will thereby open the channels of communication between the Orthodox Jewish community and CST. There is a

305 repeated theme here to the notion of safety in space (section 5.3, subsection

5), and complacency in having a personal association with the police officer, in that there is safety and a certain level of comfort being with like-minded individuals.

On a statistical level, the CST work vehemently to log accurate antisemitic data

(CST 2015, CST 2016, CST 2017). However, as respondents chose not to report their incident to the CST, those communal statistics do not reflect the prevalence of antisemitic incidents within the Orthodox Jewish community. The

CST’s data therefore only captures a part of the picture. The overall implication is that a perfectly successful organisation such as the CST in not befitting for the Orthodox Jewish community and as they stand, absent of Orthodox Jewish representatives in place, the Orthodox Jewish community is not drawn towards their services.

7.4 SHOMRIM

The final and by far, the most favoured communal organisation viewed by the participants, was Shomrim. Opinions of Shomrim varied, but on the whole, they were seen as a purposeful and caring organisation.

Those participants who viewed Shomrim favourably remarked: ‘In my opinion, they do a great job with the power that they have… I personally have experienced a lot with Shomrim and they do a great job’ (R19), ‘They are great.

They are there to help and to take over’ (R25), ‘With Shomrim, the community is getting the better deal’ (R15). ‘They are great. They are very helpful. And I think they know where to draw the line. I think it’s a wonderful thing to have

306 them. We are benefiting from them’ (R27). R23 stated that he would first ring

Shomrim as they ‘help you feel safe and secure’. R23 was reassured by the constant patrolling of Shomrim and them being highly visible within the community.

R18’s husband, whose coat caught fire by a lighter thrown on him, expressed that it was Shomrim who initially dealt with her husband’s incident: ‘He took his coat off. And Shomrim was there’. R18 continued to state: ‘I think Shomrim is a helpful organisation…If something was to happen I would first ring Shomrim’

(R18). R27, whose daughter was followed by men making antisemitic remarks, was assured by Shomrim’s and the police’s presence. ‘Thank G-d, we have

Shomrim and they would come almost immediately. Shomrim would alert the police’ (R27). FG20 said that since Shomrim’s conception, women and girls who would not have been out on the streets at night, are now feeling comfortable to do so. FG18 stated that this sense of security extends to the community at large. When FG18 asked his Muslim neighbour to buy his flat, his neighbour declined on the basis that he and his family are enjoying the safety of the neighbourhood which is provided by Shomrim.

Among these respondents, there was a sense of reliance on Shomrim, a sense of comfort in the knowledge that they are accessible and willing to support the community. That is precisely what Shomrim members hope to achieve.

Listening to the volunteers of Shomrim highlighted to me their boundless willingness to give and care for the neighbourhoods.

It is worth noting that whilst the Orthodox Jewish community could be said to

307 be insular and isolated, they showed real agency in forming their own organisation to safeguard the community. Perhaps as individuals they did not show agency to report to authorities, but as a community they set up their own infrastructures of protection. Shomrim was set up in order to increase the security and confidence levels within the neighbourhood and they seem to have been effective in achieving their aims.

The respondents’ views of Shomrim ranged. A couple of respondents questioned Shomrim’s efficacy and helpfulness (R2, R27). Others used the police as a marker of comparison and by doing so, recognised the limited capacity of Shomrim (R16, R5, R27). These respondents referred to the ability of the police to prosecute and to see that the offenders get charged, whereas

Shomrim do not have these extensive powers. Other respondents were cognisant that the particular advantage of having Shomrim is to supplement the work of the police. The police, through no fault of their own, are short-staffed and resources are finite. Shomrim volunteers live in the locality and can reach the victims within moments. Shomrim could be seen to fill this perceived gap, by offering rapid response time and the reassurance factor that the police simply does not have the resources for (R26, FG9, FG10).

Some contradictions were apparent within the data regarding Shomrim’s usefulness. For instance, R24 initially recognised that Shomrim is an added advantage to the police as they are able to act as informants about the community and community events, that they have an important role to play of being the ‘eyes and ears’ of the Orthodox Jewish community, but concluded by

308 questioning their effectiveness. These contradictions highlight that R24 had mixed feelings about Shomrim’s value:

I believe that they do very important work. They are acting as neighbourhood watch and they are being very effective at it… The police need someone to feed them information, to advise them on policy. But even having green highlight jackets outside the schools and shuls is important. It’s the government and the police, but Shomrim is part of that framework. Shomrim would tell them which shuls (synagogues) are bigger, where there are gatherings. It’s important to have that kind of facility for the police to work effectively and it’s important to have a deterrence. Other than that, they are being a very effective neighbourhood watch. Shomrim would pick up the pieces for the police, which I think is good. But I don’t think they are as important as they make themselves out to be…they are not a real service to anybody. (R24)

Other than being a support to the police, a further advantage of Shomrim, raised by respondents, was the victim and witness support - which they provide up to the point of conviction. FG17, a Shomrim SH volunteer highlighted the added service which Shomrim provides: ‘It’s also following things through. They don’t only arrest… Shomrim actually makes sure that people actually witness and people go to court and that justice is seen to be done’ (FG17). R19, the victim of the gas canisters being thrown at him, at first was too frightened to give evidence in court. It was only through the encouragement of Shomrim that he agreed to be a witness in court.

An important theme which emerged was the realisation by individuals that they were not able to report their incident to Shomrim because Shomrim do not have the facility in place to record crime. R16, knowing that the antisemitic incidents she was subjected to would not be recorded, chose to contact the police. R16 justified not calling Shomrim on the basis that ‘I think I just wanted it on record’.

FG14, a Shomrim volunteer, felt that if there were reporting mechanisms in place, reporting rates among the Orthodox Jewish members would swell. FG14

309 felt that Orthodox Jews do not have an affinity to the places which currently have reporting systems in place. He felt that as Orthodox Jews have an affinity with Shomrim, that reporting rates would multiply if reporting facilities were put in place.

This signifies the importance which Orthodox Jewish individuals place on having an Orthodox Jewish connection. Similar to the reliance on the Orthodox

Jewish police officer referred to above, members of this close-knit community would feel far more trusting in reporting their experiences to fellow members of the community. These were largely the views of individual participants.

Moving on to consider the police’s views about Shomrim being in existence and whether they see them as a hindrance or rather as a support, we shall now turn to examine the chief constables’ views of Shomrim. Shomrim, in the past, has been critiqued for attempting to side step the police. However, both Shomrim

SH and Shomrim NW currently have a close partnership with the police.

Shomrim members stated that they go out of their way to make sure that the police do not feel that they are ‘stepping on their toes’ (FG14) and ‘when the police are short-staffed, they know they can rely on the volunteers of Shomrim to assist them’ (FG14). FG9, the Chief Inspector, remarked:

The inception of Shormim, caused the Met to feel much discomfort. They were considered a riot by the police service... This was a group they were really uncomfortable with, we never had to experience difference before, and this is a group who is trying to blow us out of work. I was getting phone calls as I was the chair of the Jewish Police Association. And I would say that these people are not going to go away. These people are determined for their own community. This is what they want to do. They didn’t want to hear that. But I said to Shomrim, from the very inception, what would happen is when you start delivering the results, police officers will see that if you start handling criminals, start to reduce crime, they will start to engage with you. (FG9)

310

FG10, a Chief Inspector, echoed those thoughts and stressed that Shomrim significantly assist with detaining perpetrators:

In terms of where they have come from to where they are now, there is no comparison. It’s enormous. There is no denying that I think from memory, that 80% prisoners handed into custody from Shomrim result in conviction. You can’t get that kind of figures anywhere else. And the basic reason is that they witness the crime happening or they are 30 seconds away, they catch the person in the act. They provide you with the person, the forensic evidence and potentially the witnesses that they dragged out of the house. There is no doubt that that is a major driver for this. (FG10)

FG9 concluded:

When you get Borough Commanders suddenly being praised because they have had the biggest reduction of burglaries in the whole of the MET. Why? Because Shomrim has done it for you. You are going to love them for it…Is there a rational for them to exist. A police service can never provide what Shomrim provides. Shomrim provides on-the-door-step, immediate response to any issue that you may have. We can’t do that. (FG9)

The work of Shomrim has drawn praise and endorsements from senior police figures. FG21 commented that they had recently received a letter from the

Borough Commissioner commending them on their work:

The Borough Commissioner said that 27% of antisemitic hate crime in the Borough results in a successful arrest and charges. And he directly puts that down to Shomrim helping to track down offenders and getting people to report it. Because many times people report it but they still lost sight of the suspect. He knows his figures because he is on top and all he sees are figures in Hackney going down. And he asks the Borough commander and the Borough commander tells him. They put up posters on the bus stop saying that burglaries were reduced in SH, last year, thanks to our close relations with Shomrim. And they advertised it, they were proud of it - the police. (FG21)

The findings are commensurate with Sweiry’s research (2014) which highlighted that the most common attitude to Shomrim was that they provided the community with security. This data is also in line with published comments

311 made by Hackney Police Borough Commander, Detective Chief

Superintendent Simon Laurence who commended Shomrim SH: ‘Shomrim have delivered some truly outstanding work and been an excellent support to the police at Hackney’ (Jewish News, 2017). ‘In many ways they are a really well organised neighbourhood watch, explains police Superintendent Andy

Walker. They are very much the eyes and ears of the police’ (Pheby, 2014). A

Barnet councillor agreed that Shomrim has developed as an organisation and has secured itself a role within the community:

What is interesting about Shomrim is that they have been around for quite some time. But I think that as a result of possibly maturing as an organisation, but possibly also because of the perception within the community, they have certainly gained some respect and have found where they can be effective… I think prior to 5/6 years ago, most people’s idea of Shomrim was not that positive for whatever reason. I think now Shomrim have been able to find themselves a role because of the climate and because of the world we live in. (FG13)

Other than caring for its Jewish residents, Shomrim has extended themselves to care for its fellow Muslim residents. In May 2013, Lee Rigby was brutally killed. A wave of anti-Muslim attacks followed, including a wave of attacks on

Muslims. Fearing that they would be next, Muslim members of the Stoke

Newington mosques turned to their Jewish neighbours and asked, if Shomrim, having suffered similar attacks, would help patrol the mosques. Shomrim agreed and began patrolling immediately. US Secretary of State John Kerry, praised Shomrim of this task: ‘In London, an Orthodox Jewish neighbourhood watch team helped Muslim leaders protect their mosque and prevent future attacks’. He continued by saying

They will not receive prizes; they may not even receive recognition. Their courage goes unremarked, but that makes it all the more remarkable… Believe me, that’s the definition of courage. (Kerry, 2014, quoted in Shomrim UK, no date).

312 The work of Shomrim has drawn praise from others as well. The testimonies below confirm that the police themselves had approved and are appreciative of

Shomrim’s work. Hackney Police Borough Commander Matthew Horne also recognised the remarkable work of Shomrim. He awarded Shomrim with a commendation in extending their concern to their Muslim neighbours, following the killing of Lee Rigby. The following is an excerpt from his speech (Shomrim

UK, no date):

I think the work of the Shomrim has just been simply outstanding… that you offered to work with the Muslim community to look after the Mosque's the same way you were looking after the Synagogues…but if everybody else around the world could probably take something from that, and I suspect that the world would be a more peaceful place too. (Borough Commander Matthew Horne)

A Shomrim volunteer SH agreed that their work extended to the community at large. FG17 said that ‘64% of incidents which we assist are with non-Jews. We really care’ (FG17). It is not only the Orthodox Jewish community which recognises the noble work of Shomrim. Highly ranked officials from outside the community, have also praised their work.

Thus far, when considering both the data as well as testimonies, we have identified a number of strengths and advantages which Shomrim demonstrate.

Their close proximity within the neighbourhood, their ability to detain perpetrators to hand over to police, their caring nature which extends them beyond supporting victims at the incident itself to providing reassurance and supporting victims and the witnesses until conclusion of the trial and finally their willingness to support individuals outside of the Jewish community. However, in order for them to maximise their potential as an organisation, certain changes

313 need to be made. The resources available for Shomrim are finite, which ultimately limits their work. A high-ranked Shomrim volunteer remarked that they are ‘totally unsupported, unfunded’. Not only are volunteers unpaid, they are often needing to lay out money for the running of the organisation (to purchase radios, petrol).

The founders of Shomrim showed actual agency in forming Shomrim. There is a degree of self-reliance and self-sufficiency within the community. However, there is a limit as to how much this community can self-preserve itself and to what extent, both in terms of funding but also in the event of a terrorist attack.

They are limited in their self-sufficiency and in their capacity.

In concluding this section, the overall perception of Shomrim is positive and that it has becoming a purposeful organisation. They are appreciated by individuals, the police and have been commended for their work by stakeholders. They provide physical support as well as victim support services. In the next chapter

I made certain proposals relating to Shomrim, including collaborating with governmental bodies and increasing the funding available to them. I relied on the data and these testimonies in reaching these suggested recommendations, which may be used as necessary feedback for other stakeholders involved in policy design.

7.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I reported on respondents’ views about the primary organisations which are in place to respond to victims of antisemitism, that have often been appraised in relation to one another. There are several conclusions

314 to be drawn. First, despite the frequency of victimisation, the reporting rates among these Orthodox Jewish individuals, to all the organisations, are very low.

Second, this chapter highlights the benefits of having Shomrim and the way

Shomrim supplements and serves as an extension to the crucial work of the police. Finally, that whilst CST does vital work, one size does not fit all and this chapter illuminates the natural trust which Orthodox Jewish individuals have towards Shomrim members.

315 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION

8.1 Introduction

The final chapter of this research will bring together the main ideas discussed in the previous chapters and in light of the issues which have been raised, this chapter will aim to make suitable recommendations aimed to support the

Orthodox Jewish community. This thesis has sought to examine antisemitism as experienced by the Orthodox Jewish community in North London. The incidents of victimisation and perceptions of the Orthodox Jewish community of antisemitism have been marginalised in the existing literature and this research aimed to address this gap in knowledge.

The final chapter will be divided into four sections. The first section will outline a brief overview of the analysis. In answering the research questions, this study provided a deeper understanding of the types of incidents and the immediate responses to those incidents of antisemitism, the perceptions of Orthodox Jews regarding antisemitism and the coping mechanisms adopted in order to minimise the victimisation and the hurt. It shed light on the extent of reporting antisemitic incidents and the perceptions of Orthodox Jews regarding the agencies which respond to antisemitism. The main findings of my research will be detailed. This section will reveal that my findings do not echo the large majority of studies cited in the literature review regarding other victims of hate crime, and my research has largely produced different results, with the exception of the research of Sweiry (2014) and a couple of LGBT studies (Bell and Perry, 2012; Meyer, 2010).

316 The second section will explore the ways that my research is similar to previous research. My research served to compliment and add to the work of Sweiry

(2014). Sweiry, was the first to delve into the experiences and perceptions of

Jews in Britain to contemporary antisemitism and there are common themes running throughout both theses.

The third section of this chapter will summarise the reasons this study is unique and the way it progressed current literature. It will set out the differences between the research of Sweiry and my research and it is through setting out the differences, that the original contribution is made apparent. It will demonstrate that despite levels of antisemitism rising, the response to antisemitic victimisation of normalisation, has not changed. It will show that the gravity of the victimisation is acute among Orthodox Jews as their high visibility makes them more vulnerable. This section will show that no significant preventative mechanisms were adopted in managing the victimisation. It will discuss a key theme in the analysis of visibility and reflect that as most respondents were unmovable in negotiating their religious identity, this was a further reinforcement of the notion of normalisation. Finally, this section will elaborate that it is the religion and strong community ties which has allowed them to show resilience in the face of adversity.

The fourth section will make suggested recommendations, in particular, applied recommendations with the aim of increasing the safety and security levels of the Orthodox Jewish community. These recommendations are aimed at providing some tangible solutions to the increasing problem.

317 Using qualitative techniques to analyse the data has advanced debates on the types of incidents Orthodox Jews are subjected to as well as their perceptions of antisemitism. Conducting interviews and focus groups provided vital insight into these incidents of antisemitism and a greater understanding of the context and meanings associated with it. The qualitative techniques adopted provided a deeper understanding of their lived experiences and the emotional implications which followed. Applying quantitative techniques alone would dissociate the analysis from its context of religion, community and identity. This analysis is helpful in recognising that the qualitative techniques had enabled richer information to be collated and is a further step in the exploration of this multi-faceted phenomenon.

There are issues that have been outside the parameters of this research which may merit further research. First, and this has been previously discussed in section 6.4, the reasons the word victimisation was not illuminated within the data. Second, in future research, I would like to look more closely as to the nature of the offences – the frequency, their seriousness, whether they were recent and whether they were committed in public. These factors were very important in the way respondents were discussing their incidents. Third, and as mentioned throughout the text, the data was collected at specific neighbourhoods, around a specific period among a small group of people. Its limitation is that no hard facts can be drawn from the research but its strength is its originality of being a very localised study. The limitation of the study is also its strength.

8.2 Brief overview of analysis

318 Perhaps most striking in the analysis (chapter 4) was the widespread nature of antisemitic incidents endured by the Orthodox Jewish community. In answering the first part of research question 1, of ‘What antisemitic incidents are Orthodox

Jews in London subjected to?’ respondents described being victimised in a range of antisemitic categories, either directly or by vicarious victimisation.

Some were subjected to physical assaults, many were victims of verbal abuse and hostility and a few others endured discrimination on campus, prejudicial attitudes and being exposed to antisemitic material. The chapter exposed that while incidents varied in degree and extent, the prevalence of the victimisation often forms part of the day-to-day lives of Orthodox Jews.

In answering the second part of research question 1 of ‘What is their immediate response to those incidents?’ this chapter revealed that even though the majority of respondents were victims of antisemitic incident, be it directly or vicariously, the meaning that each participant gave and made sense of their victimisation differed; ranging from sheer dismissal to invoking palpable fear and concern for immediate safety. This section has shown that whilst these incidents evoked quite complex range of emotions, on the whole, the victimisation had become normalised for the regular as well as the irregular victims. Respondents have come to accept that some level of victimisation and that some level of antisemitism is inevitable in their lives.

Antisemitic incidents fall into various categories, and is perceived and dealt with in a multitude of ways. In answering research question 2 of ‘What are the perceptions held by Orthodox Jews in London of antisemitism?’ chapter 5 illuminated that perceptions of antisemitism were uniform in that all participants

319 felt it is a reality in Britain. However, the extent of antisemitism and its expression varied. The degree of intensity increased from respondents sensing that there is antisemitism but that it is not effecting them on a daily basis, and culminated in respondents beginning to discuss emigration. Most prominent on the scale of intensity was the acknowledgement that there has been a shift in the expression of antisemitism. This shift was most apparent within the media, within the Labour party, on campus and in the type of perpetrator and type of violence. Least prominent on this scale of intensity was the temptation of emigration. Overall, this chapter highlighted that the large majority of participants felt that there is a resurgence of antisemitism in London, leading to a greater sense of discomfort among the Orthodox Jewish community.

In answering this research question, this chapter also emphasised that these perceptions are often based on a multicity of factors, that the meaning which respondents attribute to the factors vary and that answering the question of whether antisemitism is on the rise is a complex and multifaceted issue. Some of these contributory factors were the historical and religious context.

Specifically, the historical context of antisemitism provided a yardstick against which respondents measured antisemitism today. Moreover, the religious context provided a backdrop through which some respondents assessed their victimisation of antisemitism. Combined together, the historical and religious context led to the belief that some form of antisemitism is inevitable. These contributory factors led some participants to express a sense that there is a resurgence of antisemitism, whereas others to feel that they are rather comfortable living as Orthodox Jews in Britain.

320 Chapter 6 addressed the third research question of ‘What coping mechanisms are currently being adopted in response to the rise in antisemitism by the

Orthodox Jewish community?’ The chapter has revealed that the main coping mechanism which respondents had adopted was to normalise the incidents.

Their victimisation had not led them to halt their life in any significant way. On the whole, the chapter showed that respondents have not withdrawn, nor strictly avoided certain places, nor negotiated their appearance. They accepted that some level of antisemitism is normal. I propose that the reasons respondents were able to show resistance and to accept the incidents, is due to their strong religious identity and their close community ties. These factors allow them to hold onto the conviction that their lives have meaning, that there is a sense of belonging. Their strong Jewish identity and social cohesion gives them the security and strength not to stagnate.

The final chapter of the analysis, Chapter 7, attempted to address the final research question of ‘To what extent did respondents report antisemitic incidents and what were their perceptions about the agencies which respond to antisemitism?’ Chapter 7 illuminated that only a small proportion of the incidents of antisemitism described by respondents had been reported. Most of these incidents had gone unreported. The findings in chapter 4 reflect the high occurrence of antisemitic incidents and that communal statistics are not cognisant of the habitual prevalence of antisemitic incidents among this section of the community. This chapter discussed the availability and effectiveness of the police and other communal organisations. It revealed that the Orthodox

Jewish community has a natural affiliation towards Shomrim and in order to be effective, Shomrim needs to be engaged in a different way. The final part of this

321 chapter will therefore make recommendations to advance the protection afforded to the Orthodox Jewish community.

Cumulatively therefore, my main findings are firstly, the prevalence of antisemitism within the lives of Orthodox Jews. Second, the awareness that antisemitism is alive and that there has been a shift in its manifestation, making it more institutionalised and therefore powerful. My third finding was that the main coping mechanism which respondents had adopted was to normalise the incidents, by ignoring, minimising or dismissing the victimisation and to accept that some level of abuse is inevitable. My final finding was that the one communal organisation which the Orthodox Jewish community has an affiliation with, ought to be engaged in a different way.

8.3 Similarities with previous research

The research differs from research on hate crime victims. This research, particularly chapters 4 and 6, has shown that Orthodox Jewish individuals chose to respond to their victimisation in a dissimilar fashion to most victims of hate crime. The exceptions are the research of Sweiry (2014), which yielded several similar findings as well as some studies conducted about LGBTs victims which produced similar results. The literature review has shown that studies regarding LGBT victims of hate crime produced inconclusive findings (Bell and

Perry, 2012). Some respondents were deeply impacted by the victimisation whereas others became bolder and more assertive about their identity. Meyer

(2010) also revealed that black LGBT victims were more likely (than white

LGBT victims) to downplay the severity of their victimisation. Other than these studies, the large majority of research on hate crime victim reveals that victims

322 of hate crime are deeply impacted by the victimisation. The main findings of my research do not echo the large majority of studies.

This research built on previous research on antisemitism, predominantly on the work of Sweiry (2014). Whilst I researched exclusively Orthodox British Jews,

Sweiry sampled British Jews of different religious backgrounds. Nonetheless there were some obvious similarities between our studies. First the high prevalence of victimisation among the Orthodox Jews which is often not represented by police or communal data. Second, both studies showed that the victimisation did not have the same harmful effects as victims of other hate crime and that victims normalised the incidents.

8.4 Differences with previous research and contribution to knowledge

The third section will summarise the key themes that have emerged from the analysis and will show that this study makes an important contribution to the literature of antisemitism in several ways. First, building on Sweiry’s research, this study disentangles the complex issue of normalisation. Second, it contends that there are underlying factors that may be used to explain the reason my findings appear to call into question the dominant narratives of other victims of hate crime. It is hoped that this analysis has been able to advance debates on normalisation by linking it to the religious background, and strong community ties.

8.4.1 Normalisation

This study disentangles the multi-faceted issue of normalisation, which was evident across the data. This form of agency was first apparent in the way

323 respondents interpreted the incidents they were subjected to in Chapter 4. It was then evident in them choosing not to resort to other common coping mechanisms in Chapter 6 and it was finally noticeable in choosing not to report the victimisation to any organisation in Chapter 7. Choosing not to report seems to be a personal acceptance of the victimisation. The analysis has been able to progresses current literature on normalisation in four ways.

First, if we only look back four years, predominant studies on antisemitism did not place any emphasis on antisemitism on campus nor in the government

(JPR, 2014; Sweiry, 2014). More than half of the respondents in my study gave prominence to the growth of antisemitism within the Labour party, the media and on campus. This view spun across genders and ages. Some of the older respondents were cognisant that the parameters had changed; that what used to be confined to low-level criminality on the streets now manifests itself institutionally. The younger respondents too sensed a shift, particularly on campus. For them, campus only ten years ago was a secure place and that sense of security is no longer intact.

Despite a resurgence of antisemitism, this study demonstrates that even when the stakes are higher, Orthodox Jews respond to the victimisation in the same vein; by normalising the incidents. The timeliness of the research cannot be understated. Antisemitism has grown in only a few years (CST, 2017). There is higher degree of intensity. And yet the response of normalisation is the same.

Whilst I was not looking at trends, just at a few individuals, the response is identical to previous research conducted at a time period where antisemitism

324 was not as ripe. Despite the intensity level of antisemitism, Orthodox Jewish respondents have chosen to accept the victimisation.

The second way this study progressed current literature in that normalisation was chosen as a coping mechanism, despite the severity of the abuse increasing. Unlike Sweiry’s sample and due to the fact that the respondents in my study were exclusively visibly Jewish, the gravity of victimisation is more acute – with physical abuse being a fairly common feature. The sample of

Sweiry did not include any physically abusive incidents which is probably due to the fact that most of his respondents were not visibly Jewish. That makes the previous point of normalisation even more striking, because accepting verbal abuse is not on par with accepting a physical attack.

The third way that this study progressed current literature is by showing that normalisation was chosen by most respondents, as the most common coping mechanism. Sweiry describes a range of coping mechanisms which were adopted to manage the hurt and to prevent future victimisation. A few chose normalisation, but the vast majority of his respondents had adopted preventative coping mechanisms. Some chose to negotiate their identity, by removing kapples. Others felt the need to control space out of fear of antisemitism and avoided certain public places. Others took preventative measures such as choosing where to live or which school to send their children to. One went as far as choosing to emigrate and another was in the process of emigrating. This shows that more acute preventative mechanisms were adopted by Jews who were more secular and therefore more assimilated into society. The impact which they endured was more extensive than the impact of

325 the respondents within my study. I propose that the reasons for this is because secular Jews perceive themselves to be primarily British and secondarily

Jewish. My respondents, on the other hand, would consider themselves first and foremost to be Jewish and than British. It is because of the importance which they place on being British, that when attacked, respondents in Sweiry’s research felt so isolated and excluded from mainstream society. The respondents in my study do not have an urging need to belong to mainstream society and have structures in place to mitigate the victimisation (religious upbringing and close community ties).

Fourthly, this study progressed current literature as it has shown that respondents have chosen not to modify their visibility despite knowing that by remaining visible, they become more likely targets. The key theme of visibility reflects that as most respondents were unmovable in negotiating their identity, this was a further reinforcement of the notion of normalisation. For them, being

Jewish meant the possibility of being victimised and they were not prepared to modify their outer appearance.

As the respondents in my research were exclusively Orthodox Jews, and in accordance with identity theory (Stryker, 1980), the respondents reported high levels of Jewish identification and great salience of their Jewish identity. The respondents in this study, due to their visibility, defied any possibility of them being anything else other than Jewish. Respondents were cognisant that it was their distinctive Jewish appearance which made them a target. They felt that it was their visibility that made them vulnerable to victimisation.

326 Yet, despite the risk, very few respondents even contemplated concealing their identity. For most, it was not a choice to take steps to control their visibility, even if it carried potential risks. Aside from the practical difficulties involved in

Orthodox Jewish individuals modifying their visibility, for an Orthodox Jew person, concealing their identity would be a real act of defiance against the religion. Most respondents were appalled by the thought of purposefully concealing their identity.

This theme was apparent in understanding the way their victimisation was viewed and interpreted. For instance, respondents were cognisant that due to their visibility, being verbally abused would be part of the day-to-day life of an

Orthodox Jew, and that some level of antisemitism is inevitable. These incidents only served to accentuate the notion of separateness and difference.

Being singled out was a reinforcement of what they already felt – that they were not part of British mainstream. In the majority of cases these instances only served to strengthen their Jewish identity and close community ties. These intended feelings of exclusion often had the opposite effect of pushing respondents closer towards their Jewish identity and community.

It is by setting out the differences of the two theses, that the original contribution of my research, is made apparent. The thesis has shown that despite antisemitism being on the increase, that despite the severity of the abuse increasing, the majority of respondents in my study chose not to negotiate their outer appearance, and have chosen instead to adopt normalisation as a coping mechanism, and no other preventative measures.

327 By taking an even closer look at a section of an already small community, my findings therefore, regarding normalisation, appear to shed more subtle light, in that the Orthodox Jewish community did not adhere to the dominant narratives of other victims of hate crime, nor even the dominant narrative of the general

Jewish community.

8.4.2 Strong religious background and community ties

The analysis has also been able to progress current literature in suggesting the reasons behind respondents being able to choose normalisation over other coping mechanisms. I propose that it is their religion and strong community ties which has allowed them to show resilience in the face of adversity and that it is these two factors which had the effect of curtailing the trauma. These two themes emerged throughout the narrative of the analysis.

Literature on impacts of hate crime revealed that hate crime can have long lasting effects and can erode quality of life. As noted, studies on hate crime victimisation reveal that ‘hate crime hurts more’; that the psychological and emotional impacts of hate crime victims are greater. For Jewish Orthodox participants, hate crime victimisation did not present the same challenges to their sense of personal identity and therefore did not have the same harmful impacts. Because the sample in my study were exclusively Orthodox, religion and community played a dominant role. I suggest that it was the religion that has acted as a medium for individuals to cope with the victimisation.

Religion was at the core of all of the respondents’ identities and is a fundamental tenant of an Orthodox Jewish life. Section 6.2a has shown that

328 their religious involvement is an important source of managing their victimisation. Participants were able to normalise the victimisation because of their strong religious identity. Participants held onto a conviction that their lives have meaning, and a belief that things will work out in the end, despite unfavourable odds. It was on that basis that, evident across the findings, respondents chose normalisation. Ultimately, what is ostensible from the data is that these victims are not passive sufferers of trauma, but that the nature and strength of their religious identity has the effect of curtailing the trauma.

Other than the religious background, I propose that it was strong community ties that gave the respondents the ability to use their own resources to manage the victimisation. The Orthodox Jewish community provides rich webs of family and social support for its members. Respondents felt a sense of strength among its close-knit community. Respondents felt secure and confident within their community and felt that matters could be largely handled within. It was the climate of safety within the neighbourhood that has lead respondents to accept their victimisation.

8.5 Suggested Recommendations

The Orthodox Jewish community, as has been seen, is the sector of the community most victimised, and yet the ones who are least voiced. Whilst it would be impossible to eliminate antisemitism, as stereotyping and ingrained prejudices will always be held by some, attempts should be made to take appropriate steps to seek successful ways to reduce the phenomenon across the board, or at the very least, to ensure that there is no further resurgence of antisemitism. Below are some suggested recommendations to ensure that

329 antisemitism among the Orthodox Jewish community is kept to a minimum and the steps which could be further taken to respond to the rise in antisemitism. I have proposed three main thematic recommendations (illustrated in diagram 4 below) which have been drawn from my data. The first is to increase knowledge, data and resource sharing available to Shomrim, the second is to appoint a Jewish police liaison officer in police forces located in heavily populated Jewish areas and the third is to encourage reporting among the

Orthodox Jewish community. These suggested recommendations are aimed at identifying tangible solutions to this increasing problem and ought to be considered in order to provide greater security measures for the Orthodox

Jewish community.

A great deal of the government’s specific work on antisemitism has been supported by the Cross-Government Working Group on Antisemitism, led by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) which was set up in the wake of The All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism (2006).

The Cross-Government Working Group provides the opportunity for joint long- term efforts between the government and the Jewish community to discuss and tackle antisemitism. The group consists of civil servants, representatives of the

CST, Jewish Leadership Council, Board of Deputies of British Jews and the All-

Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism. However, the most visible section of the Jewish community, the Orthodox Jewish community, is not represented at all within this Cross Government Working Group. This Inquiry

‘did not request any evidence from the most visible section of the Jewish community…’ (Sugarman, 2016). A volunteer of Shomrim SH said: ‘This is an omission of quite staggering proportions’ (Sugarman, 2016). I therefore argue

330 that the current responses available do not specifically address the needs of the Orthodox Jewish community. The prevalence of antisemitic incidents among the Orthodox Jewish community beseeches for the development of an effective and comprehensive response to antisemitism among this marginalised group. This recommendation will address how these voices can best be heard.

8.5.1 Knowledge, Data and Resource Sharing

Following on from this, the government and the police have established a close and collaborative approach with the CST. The CST does form part of the Cross-

Government Working Committee on Antisemitism. The work of the CST is vital to protect the broad Jewish community. However, my data as shown that the

331 CST does not speak for the whole community. The government should hence establish a close and collaborative relationship with Shomrim in order to assess the Orthodox Jewish communities’ needs and prevent future attacks. Shomrim do what they can within limited resources and therefore this recommendation is based on what they are requesting. In line with the privileges which the CST have and supported by my data, Shomrim feel that they should have four additional privileges:

i. A member of Shomrim should be appointed to be part of the Cross-

Government Working Committee on Antisemitism. At present, there is

no representative from the Orthodox Jewish community in these

meetings, leaving an opening for the Orthodox Jewish community to be

properly represented. The current responses available do not

specifically target the Orthodox Jewish community. It is therefore of

importance that a member of Shomrim should be appointed to identify

the community’s concerns, clarify the expectations of the community and

engage with them in developing effective responses.

ii. The second privilege is for community development, to distribute more

resources to the Orthodox Jewish community, by giving them direct

access to funding. Presently, it is the CST which administers the funding.

As CST and Shomrim are mutually exclusive organisations, which target

different sections of the Jewish community, a separate budget ought to

be made for the Orthodox Jewish community for them to decide how

funding should be distributed or alternatively Shomrim ought to be to be

332 allocated higher percentages of distribution within the same budget in

order to support their operations in their respective neighbourhoods.

iii. The third privilege, similar to the CST, is to accord Shomrim with an

information sharing agreement with police forces across England and

Wales. This would serve as the link between Shomrim and the police. It

would allow more dialogue with the police about antisemitic incidents.

Sharing data can have significant implications for levels of hate crime. It

would also allow Shomrim to have more awareness on who the

perpetrators are and what can be done to secure the community.

Transparency in sharing information would enhance trust among Jewish

community members and the police. It would increase the ability to tackle

hate crime.

iv. The Orthodox Jewish community lacks the necessary resources to fully

address the low reporting rates among the Orthodox Jewish community.

Some of the increased funding to Shomrim should be spent in setting up

a rigorous data recording facility to compile all antisemitic incidents

among the Orthodox Jewish community accurately and reliably (with

CST being an example of an organisation which has in place successful

data recording facilities).

Once a recording facility is set up, Shomrim should act as a Third Party

Reporter to assist victims in reporting antisemitic hate crime. The Metropolitan

Police acknowledge that ‘Sharing our data is important to us and to the public’

(Metropolitan police, no date). Shomrim volunteers would work as

333 intermediaries between victims and the authorities. Shomrim would encourage disinclined victims to report the police and members of the Orthodox Jewish community would turn to them and report antisemitic incidents.

Collecting antisemitic data among the Orthodox Jewish community will highlight the scale of the severity of antisemitic crime and will allow policymakers to gauge appropriate responses.

The recommendations to increase the powers of Shomrim would allow individuals to be more potent in their choice making when reporting. Orthodox

Jewish individuals will be able to position themselves in choosing who to report to if resources are allocated suitably. If reporting of antisemitic incidents does increase, it will benefit both the individuals as well as the system.

This recommendation of establishing a collaborative relationship between

Shomrim and the Police as well as the government is aimed at making the community feel safer. Knowing that the lines of communication are open between these organisations would infuse the community with confidence.

8.5.2 Orthodox Jewish community liaison officer

Encouraging dialogue and co-operation between local law-enforcement officials and members of the Orthodox Jewish community will promote partnership and mutual trust. My findings revealed the importance of the affinity of police officers to the community and a practical step to encourage dialogue is to establish a role for a Jewish-community liaison officer in police forces in heavily populated Jewish areas, who would act as an intermediary. This second

334 recommendation should be extended to other minority groups. Hearing the voices of Orthodox Jewish victims of antisemitism is essential in assessing the security needs of that sector of the community. Establishing channels of communication is vital to develop long term strategies. Voicing their experiences and articulating their needs, would enhance relevant action plans.

8.5.3 Encourage Reporting

The third and final recommendation is to encourage reporting among the

Orthodox Jewish community. Several measures have been introduced in the last decade to increase levels of reporting of hate crime by encouraging victims to come forward (True Vision, 2010; MOPAC 2014). My data revealed the low reporting rates within the Orthodox Jewish community. Orthodox Jewish individuals who face antisemitic attacks should be encouraged to report to both the police as well as Shomrim. A fundamental component of the criminal justice system is the willingness of the public to show active community involvement by accessing the services accorded to them.

The purpose of encouraging reporting is two-fold. First, as members of the community underrate the effect of the events on them, to raise awareness among members that they do not have to suffer and that they can be proactive in their agency. Second, the importance and purpose of reporting incidents for information gathering needs to be filtered down to the Orthodox Jewish community. Victims of crime are possibly ‘the most influential of all criminal justice decision makers’ (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1988, p. 15). Victims of crime have been described as the ‘gatekeeper’ or ‘filter’ in the criminal justice

335 process as in the absence of reporting, a noteworthy portion of crime would go undetected (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1988, p. 16).

Neither Shomrim nor the police can be successful without the cooperation of those victimised. Orthodox Jews need to build up the confidence to come forward and share their experiences. Awareness should be raised within the

Orthodox Jewish community as to where and how to report antisemitic incidents. Shomrim should distribute leaflets and advertise in local papers that a reporting facility is in place. A 24-hour emergency and non-emergency response should be available to supplement the work of the police. Shomrim should publish annual reports reflecting the rate of incidents among the community. The Jewish community needs to be made aware that when incidents are not reported, it creates inaccuracies in crime rate estimates and therefore has significant consequences into how the criminal justice respond to victims of antisemitism.

In summary, these recommendations, which have been drawn out of my data, are aimed to make the Orthodox Jewish community safer. By increasing awareness of the importance of reporting among the Orthodox Jewish community, by putting in place an intermediary to liaise between the Orthodox

Jewish community and the police, and by increasing resource and knowledge sharing with Shomrim, Orthodox Jewish individuals will feel that they are not combatting antisemitism alone. Those components should influence their levels of safety and security living as outwardly British Jews in London. The recommendations are made in order to ensure that antisemitism is tackled

336 effectively on a local community level to ensure that London remains a place of tolerance and inclusivity.

8.6 Conclusion

Against this background, this thesis has made a unique contribution to understanding and knowledge of the targeted victimisation of Orthodox Jewish individuals in London. This in-depth study of Orthodox Jews exclusively, has informed hate crime literature in a number of ways. First, it identified the unique types of incidents of Orthodox Jews as victims of antisemitism that had not been exclusively evidenced by previous studies. Significantly, the study has informed knowledge of the immediate response of this victimisation upon Orthodox

Jewish individuals and their perceptions of the antisemitism in Britain. In addition, the study has explored the responses of Orthodox Jews to the victimisation and revealed that their acceptance of the victimisation needs to be seen in the context of the religious background and strong community ties. It demonstrated that Orthodox Jewish individuals managed this victimisation using their own agency, by normalising the incidents.

This research has provided extensive insights into the nature and meaning

Orthodox Jews give antisemitism, an area that has almost been neglected from the literature. The outcome of this research is at odds with the high prevalence of victimisation experienced by this community. This tight-knit religious community is, at present, managing in their response to the growing antisemitism. They have shown not to be passive sufferers or victims. This act of normalisation, and choosing not to be named as victims, shows agency, resilience and a choice to end the process.

337

The choice to normalise the antisemitic incidents, ought not to deflect the need for change. This community has been pushed into a situation that they have managed to normalise and they are managing to survive. But this should not avert the need for a collective appraisal of what is going on within the Orthodox

Jewish community. It is therefore of importance that a member of Shomrim should be appointed to be part of the Cross-Government Working Committee on Antisemitism. The Shomrim volunteer would identify the community’s concerns, clarify the expectations of the community and engage with them in developing more effective responses.

Antisemitism is a stain in our society. It is a complex phenomenon that has spanned generations. The Orthodox Jewish community is the most visible and at highest risk of victimisation. They are also the section of the Jewish population that is growing at a rapid rate. The increase in the rate of incidents must not be allowed to precipitate. The prevalence of antisemitic incidents among the Orthodox Jewish community beseeches for the development of an effective and comprehensive response to antisemitism among this marginalised group.

338 APPENDIX 1

Participant Recruitment Letter

I am writing to let you know about an opportunity to participate in a research study about experiences and perceptions of antisemitism within the Orthodox

Jewish community. The research is conducted under the auspices of the Law

Department within the University of West London. The main aim of the research is to investigate whether there is a general perception among the Orthodox

Jewish community that antisemitism is on the rise within London.

I am currently seeking volunteers who would wish to participate in the study.

You do not need to have personally experienced antisemitic attacks, although these incidents would be of interest to me as well. The interviews are likely to last up to 90 minutes, take place between August – November 2016 and in the comfort of your own home or another suitable location to you. All interviews will be confidential and anonymous.

You would need to meet the following criteria to participate in this invaluable research project:

- Would you consider yourself to be an Orthodox Jew?

- Are you aged 18-70?

- Can you dedicate 90 minutes of your time?

I would like to assure you that this study has been reviewed and received ethical clearance through the University of West London. The knowledge gained from

339 this study will be disseminated to the community and aims to effect policy. Your participation will be instrumental.

If you are interested in participating in this research, please respond to this email. Alternatively, if you are interested in learning more about this study before you commit, feel free to ring me on xxxxxxx.

Thank you for considering this research opportunity.

Maya Flax

340 APPENDIX 2

Consent Form for Interviewees and Participant Information Sheet

CONSENT FORM

PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF ANTI- SEMITISM IN 21ST CENTURY LONDON AMONG THE ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITY

Prospective Research participant,

I, Maya Flax, have been awarded a studentship by the Law Department at the

University of West London, to conduct a PhD thesis on the experiences and perceptions of antisemitism within the Orthodox Jewish community in 21st century

London. The main purpose of this research is to investigate the recent resurgence of antisemitism in London.

Hate crime is defined as any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a personal characteristic. Offences which are motivated by prejudice based on a person’s religion constitute a hate crime. Hate crime can have devastating consequences on the victims and their families, but it can also divide communities.

The aim of this interview is to gather knowledge on your perspective and experience of hate crime. Analysis of data will increase awareness of the impact of hate crime on its immediate victims, the community and society at large. This information will be used to assess the criminal justice policy’s response in tackling the resurgence of antisemitism within the UK. Your participation in this study is therefore highly valuable.

341

I intend on conducting in depth semi- structured interviews. I will ask you to meet with me for 1 to 1.5 hours. During the interview we will explore certain questions regarding hate crime incidents that you may have personally experienced. If you have experienced any element of hate crime, I respectfully ask you to contribute your unique experience.

This project has received ethical clearance from the University Ethical Team. This research will be confidential and anonymous at all times. Your name and your circumstances will be generalised in order to protect your anonymity. The information you have provided me will be retained until 5 years from the completion of the PhD, which is scheduled to be in October 2018. I will also ask for your permission to contact you subsequent to the interview in order to seek any clarification or additional information which may be needed.

Your involvement in this research is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your participation from this study at any time. After the study is completed, you will have access to the paper if you so wish.

If you have any concern about the conduct of this research, please address my supervisor, head of graduate school, Professor Joelle Fanghanel who can be contacted on xxxxxx.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the study, please contact me at:

Email: xxxxxxx or Tel: xxxxxxx.

1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information the purpose of this study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questions and have had these answered satisfactorily.

342

2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving any reason.

3. I understand that whilst information given by me may be used in future reports, articles or presentations by the researcher, my details will not appear.

4. I agree to take part in the above study.

______

______

Name of Participant Date Signature

I thank you in advance for giving your time to what should be a real contribution for change.

Yours sincerely,

Maya Flax

LL.B, MA, Member of the Bar of England & Wales.

343 APPENDIX 3

Focus Group Consent Form

Focus Group Consent Form

Research project title: 'Hate Crime, Prejudice and Fear': A sociological exploration of Jewish' experiences and perceptions of anti-Semitism in 21st century London.

Research investigator: Mrs. Maya Flax

You have been asked to participate in a Police officer – based focus group. The purpose of the group is to explore whether the policy in place is adequate in dealing with the resurgence of antisemitism and to discuss whether the Jewish community is effected by antisemitism. The original contribution of this research is that the voices of the Jewish community will be heard for the first time.

Therefore, the research is aimed to effect policy to some degree.

You can choose whether or not to participate in the focus group and stop at any time. Although the focus group will be tape recorded, your responses will remain anonymous and no names will be mentioned in the thesis.

344 There are no right or wrong answers to the focus group questions. I would like to hear many different viewpoints and I would like to hear from everyone.

Moreover, I would like to hear from you, even if your responses are not in agreement with the rest of the group. In respect of each other, I ask that responses made by all participants be kept confidential.

I understand this information and agree to participate fully under the conditions stated above.

Signed: ______Date: ______

345 APPENDIX 4

Semi Structures Interview Schedule

Preliminary questions:

• Name

• Gender

• Age group

• Profession

General questions about Antisemitism:

1. Generally what are your views on antisemitism in the UK?

Potential prompting questions:

• Do you think that the level of antisemitism is different now than it was in the past? Has antisemitism changed over the years? Do you feel secure living as a Jew in Britain?

• What are the policies in place that you are aware of? Do you feel that the policy we have in place adequately protects victims of antisemitism?

• What emotions is the Orthodox Jewish community faced with.

• Have you ever considered leaving Britain because of antisemitism?

• How does media coverage / public expressions of antisemitism effect you as a Jew?

• Do you regard anti-zionist comments as antisemitic?

Identity negotiation:

2. Is being Jewish an essential component in your life?

3. Do you consider yourself being integrated into main stream society?

346 Potential prompting questions:

• Is your religious level compromised in order to integrate into society?

• Does antisemitism effect the way you express your Jewishness in public?

• Have you had to conceal or negotiate your ‘Jewishness’?

• Is your Jewish identity effected as a result of antisemitism? Does it reinforce your identity, or weaken your Jewish identity? (External threats can reinforce the sense of belonging).

• Are there certain things that you now do / wear (symbols) in order to assert your Jewish identity in the face of antisemitism?

3. Have you, or anyone else you know, been subjected to any antisemitic

hostility?

If Yes: Questions to those who have experienced antisemitism:

• Could you describe the circumstances? (where, how many perpetrators, did you recognise them, alone, witnesses)

Potential prompting questions:

• What was it that made you believe that the incident was specifically antisemitic?

• How did the incident make you feel?

• If you were in a public place, did you receive any support from the public? (By standards who do not intervene are condoning the crime).

• How did this incident effect you immediately after the incident?

• Looking back at the incident, how did it effect you in the short term?

• Looking back at the incident, how did it effect you in the long term?

• What helped you to cope with the incident?

• Did you get the help and support that you needed?

347 • Did you get in touch with any organisation? (Which organisation, if any, helped you the most during this period and in what way (CST / police))?

• What did you choose to report / not report? Reason for and again.

• What influenced your preferences as to which organisation you chose to report to?

• Was that the only incident or have you ever experienced any other antisemitic incident?

If knows someone who has experienced antisemitism:

Potential prompting questions:

• Have you been effected by those incidents?

• In what way has it effected you?

348 APPENDIX 5

Focus Group Schedule

1. Antisemitism in London:

• How has the North London Orthodox Jewish community been effected by antisemitism?

• Do you think antisemitism effects the way the Jewish community has integrated within main stream society?

• Can we talk about how people feel about their sense of security?

• Do you think that antisemitism makes the community more cohesive / stick together / split apart / sense of community is being eroded?

2. Coping Mechanisms:

• What mechanisms has the Orthodox Jewish community adopted in coping with antisemitism?

• Do you think that people’s religious levels are compromised in order to integrate into society? Or does it cause people to become more resolute?

(identity negotiation)

• Does antisemitism effect the way people express their Jewishness in public?

• Do people need to conceal or negotiate their Jewishness?

• Do people avoid certain areas

3. Agencies:

• Can we talk about existing agencies which monitor antisemitism? Police, CST,

Shomrim

349 • In your opinion, what existing policies are working? What policies are not working

• What else do we need?

• Employ Shomrim / CST

350 APPENDIX 6

Appendix of Terminology

G-d: many believe that writing G-d, rather than God, is a sign of respect.

According to the Rema (Yoreh De’ah 276:13), we should not erase on destroy

God’s name and should avoid writing it.

Charedi – Orthodox Jewish – denotes a Jew who is religious, pious and observant.

Chassidish – ultra orthodox person

A Diaspora (galus, exile) is a dispersion, an exile, an unnatural state of being.

A central part of Orthodox Jewry is the notion of galus / exile. That in essence they are temporary residents, who actually belong elsewhere and that with the arrival of the Messiah, they will return to Israel, the spiritual homeland.

Gemach – Jewish organisation which lends out money / other products

Kapple / Yurmalke – Skullcap (head covering)

Sheitel - wig

Tzizit - tassels

Tzedokah – charity

Some of these definitions are oversimplified, for the purposes of ease.

351 APPENDIX 7

Vignettes

The interview participants were as follows - in the order in which I met them:

R1: A27 year old student, single young lady from NW, who feels that overall she has had positive reactions from others when she disclosed that she was

Jewish. As a child she was regularly insulted by a group of youths who chanted derogatory songs and at times used metal bars to hit her over the helmet or threw tennis balls as she was cycling. During her year in college she was shouted at by a fellow Muslim student: ‘I hope you are happy killing all these kids in Gaza’. She takes pride in her Judaism and feels that these incidents encouraged her to share the beauty of the religion, rather than to shy away from her identity. She has not personally felt that antisemitism is on the rise.

R2: A 69-year-old retired Jeweller from NW who has never personally experienced any antisemitic incidents. Nonetheless, he feels that the Jews have always been persecuted and that antisemitism will forever endure. He is concerned that antisemitism is on the rise, particularly within the Labour party and feels that there is a sense of fear among the community.

R3: An unemployed single 22-year-old young man from Stamford Hill, who experienced 5 different antisemitic incidents whilst in his first year in a film college in London. He felt he had no option but to leave college to the extent that he refused to apply to any other college. He feels that antisemitism is definitely on the rise. Being an intimidated person, whilst he would not choose

352 to deny his Jewishness, he would choose to work and study in the future in

Jewish-only environments.

R4: A divorced 57-year-old man from Stamford Hill who is a shop owner. He has not personally experienced any antisemitism, he does not feel afraid and is comfortable living in Stamford Hill. He says that others do not identify with him and recognises that there is a sense of fear in the community. He is a proud

Jew who does not conceal his identity.

R5: An unemployed single 22-year-old from NW. He views antisemitism to be a serious problem; a phenomenon which has always been and always will be.

He feels that antisemitism is certainly on the rise and that the future of this country is not looking hopeful as a Jew. He has personally experienced antisemitic incidents. He was driving down Golders Green Road when a couple of men made a Nazi salute at him and called him Nazi. They started running after his car, so he drove off. He has been shouted and laughed at on several other occasions. He feels that these incidents have strengthened his identity as a Jew.

R6: A 68-year-old married male from NW, an architect by profession, a holder of a PhD and studying for another masters at present. He grew up as a child to survivors of the war. He has personally never experienced antisemitism other than a comment made by his university lecturer recently, which he chose not to challenge and some foul shouting on a Friday night. His responses have been quite empathetic to the non–Jews, suggesting that any antagonism against

Jews is not personal to the Jews. He puts it down to xenophobia, or anti Zionism

353 (which he feels is different from antisemitism) rather than an innate antisemitic feel within London. His perceptions of the world are that if Jews behave well, they will be treated well, and spared from any prejudices.

R7: A 53-year-old male Musician (father of 3), from NW, who was raised as a

Christian and was only told of his Jewish heritage at the age of 30. He was raised to a family who concealed their Jewishness and a grandmother who he described as antisemitic, despite her own Jewish heritage. He had embraced a

Jewish life and yet conceals his identity when in non-Jewish environments. He puts this need to conceal his identity down to fears engrained within him from his family.

R8: A 38-year-old married Rabbi (father of 4), working in outreach in NW, who was attacked on a train coming back from Newcastle. There was a group of large men, who were drunken and when they saw the Rabbi, they started singing anti-Jewish songs and throwing food at him. They were provoking, rowdy, intimidating and he kept his head down pretending not to speak English.

He felt terrified during the incident, equating it to Kristallnacht. He was further disappointed that despite the fact that it was a full train, no one came to his assistance. The incident did not leave a long term impact on him. He does not personally feel that there is antisemitism but is aware that things are going in that direction.

R9: A 21-year-old male university student from NW, who had a comment being shouted his way about his Jewish identity during a full lecture hall. He was very taken aback by this incident. It resulted in him taking off his kapple and at times

354 not even wearing it at home. He was also the victim of unsuccessful mugging

6 times which he felt could have been antisemitic.

R10: A married woman, university professor, in her 60s, living in NW. She has not personally experienced incidents of antisemitism. Professionally, she is integrated into the non-Jewish world and she has never had to conceal her identity. She has only had positive experiences from her colleagues. She gets tremendously distressed listening to media expressions of antisemitism to the extent that she wants to shield herself from reading the news.

R11: A 41-year-old single lady from NW and is a holder of an undergraduate degree and 2 masters. She works in the corporate services department of a

City firm. She has never personally experienced an antisemitic attack and on the whole, been treated positively at work. Nonetheless, she has been impacted by her brother being attacked, she has considered leaving England during the

Gaza war and she is regularly weary about her being Jewish. There is a pull and a push regarding her Jewish identity. She has dedicated over a decade of her life being a Jewish educator and an advocate for Judaism. She feels that being Jewish is completely bound up in her life and now she has chosen to take a conscious step back from it. She would feel validated by positive expressions of acceptance from the least expected sources.

R12: A 39 married male from NW who is a software writer for an actuary consultancy. He was physically attacked whilst walking home during the summer of 2009 (Gaza war) by two males wearing Balaclavas. He was hospitalised for the injuries sustained. He described not feeling moved by his

355 attack, expressing sheer indifference. He understands that others were shaken up by his incident. Someone reported that his incident shook his entire feeling of safety, but he seems less moved by this incident than others.

R13: A 58-year-old married lady (mother and grandmother) from NW who is a senior partner in a city law firm. She feels that there is a rise in antisemitism.

They never used to discuss needing to leave the UK whereas now it has become a topic at home. She experienced some remarks earlier in her career but her senior position and her successful turnover in the firm has protected her from being on the receiving end of any negative comments about her

Jewishness. As a trainee and an article clark she was on the receiving end of some racial comments. Whilst being fully immersed in the non-Jewish world professionally, having achieved such a senior position has provided her with a certain protection.

R14: A 63-year-old married woman from NW. She feels that there is a shift in antisemitism within the UK. She feels that antisemitism has always existed but that it has taken a different shape. Forty years ago, it would have been unthinkable to have all these antisemitic demonstrations. She personally experienced antisemitism first when her very ill son was discharged from hospital by a senior Muslim consultant even though her son was leaking from his wounds and should not have been discharged. She viewed this as malicious negligence which was antisemitic. She also witnessed an incident in the airport when a chassidish man with learning difficulties, was pushing his way through the queue whilst mumbling something. A large man announced to the crowd waiting: ‘and then they wonder why they gassed them’. She feels very

356 concerned that no one said anything to him and that inherently this is what people feel. She was deeply effected by both incidents. She wants to leave the

UK because she does not feel that this is home.

R15: A married lady in her late 70s from Stamford Hill. She is a public figure, a chief executive of a Housing Association for the past nearly 40 years. She was born during the outbreak of the war and travelled to the UK with the Kinder

Transport in 1946. She carries the scars of her history, which form her perceptions of today. She feels antisemitism is ripe and always has been. She sees it manifesting itself within her regular dealings with the local council who purposely deny housing to the Jews.

R16: A 30-year-old married lady from Stamford Hill (a mother of 2), a deputy manager of a women’s mental health hospital. She feels that even though the

UK stands strong against antisemitism, there is a sense of fear among the community. She feels grateful living as a Jew in Britain and feels that largely there is no institutional discrimination. She recently took her children to a soft play in Hackney. They ran out of the kosher snacks which they normally sell there, so she asked for permission to give her children an identical snack to the one they sell. They refused to allow her to give her child this snack and when she questioned them, they shouted at her and said: ‘get out get out’. She found the incident very intimidating. On another occasion, whilst walking with her husband, she was shouted ‘Heil Hitler’ by some youths driving in a car.

R17: A 24-year-old married lady (mother to 1) who manages a retail business from NW. She lives and works in NW and has limited contacts with the non

357 Jewish world. She is aware that there is antisemitism in the UK but does not feel that it is personally effecting her nor the neighbourhood. The community on a day-to-day basis does not feel apprehensive. She feels that hate in general has increased over the years, not just antisemitism.

R18: A married 20-year-old Jewish studies teacher from Stamford Hill. She feels safe living in London and believes that the community is comfortable in

Stamford Hill. She has never personally experienced an antisemitic incident.

Her husband had a lit cigarette thrown at him and part of his coat went on fire.

She did not consider the incident to be significant and ‘forgot about it within half an hour’.

R19: A 34-year-old married building contractor from Stamford Hill. He feels that antisemitism is ripe in London and that people are living with a sense of fear.

He believes that relative to the times that he was a child, there has been a real increase in the amount of abuse that they are subjected to now. He experiences antisemitic incidents very often. He is on the receiving end of verbal abuse two or three times a week. Several months ago he was leaving a shopping area with two friends in Tottenham when a number of adults threw small gas canisters at them shouting ‘Heil Hitler’. He found it very overwhelming as he thought the canisters were explosive. Another time he was approached by a man who neighbours a house where he is carrying out building works and the man, frustrated with the noise and the dust, shouted at him ‘I will burn all the

Jews’ and that he was going to slit my throat.

358 R20: A 39-year-old married man from NW who studies in Kollel (Jewish laws and philosophy). He feels that antisemitism is inherent in people and that the

Jewish community ought to be cautious. He was attacked on the top deck of a

London bus in Stamford Hill by a Muslim Algerian man, who stabbed him more than 32 times with a hunting knife. He was operated on for 10 hours and lost

8/9 pints of blood. The perpetrator was charged with attempted murder and subsequently sectioned. As a result of this attack he has a great appreciation for life and to G-d for sparing his life. He believes that it only impacted him positively.

R21: A 43-year-old single lady from NW, a COO of an asset management company in the city. She has never personally experienced antisemitism but acknowledges that it exists. She is integrated into society at large and whilst she has only had positive experiences mixing with people of multi cultures, she recognises that there is fear among the Jewish community.

R22: A 25-year-old woman (mother of 1) from NW, who is a graphic designer by profession. She is aware that antisemitism is on the rise, but personally, she does not feel it. In the summer of 2016, she was in a pharmacy in NW when a couple walked in with a dog. The non Jewish pharmacist asked them politely to leave the dog outside the pharmacy and said that no dogs were allowed in. The female responded: ‘Why are dogs not allowed here, Jews are!’ An argument ensued outside between the pharmacist and the couple and the pharmacist refused to serve them thereafter. She witnessed the entire incident of verbal assault. She described feeling shock at the time but looking back at it she feels it was ‘cringe funny’.

359

R23: A 25-year-old married woman (mother to 3) from Stamford Hill who was a

Jewish studies teacher until recently. She believes that the Jewish community is on good terms with the non Jews in Stamford hill and that there is mutual respect. She feels that the community feels secure and there is no sense of fear. She does not believe that antisemitism is on the rise. She feels that antisemitism manifests itself very occasionally and with minor incidents acted out by childish youths.

R24: A 30-year-old, developer consultant in Stamford Hill, father of two. He has never experienced any form of antisemitism. On the contrary, he has felt that he has been treated with much sensitivity and awareness of his religion by the non Jews, with whom he is in regular contact with professionally. He feels that his community is very comfortable living in the UK and that Jews are living in a tolerant society. Be that as it may, he feels that the absence of a feeling of antisemitism on a day-to-day basis does not mean that antisemitism is not there. He feels that it is all an illusion, that there is inherent hate towards the

Jews and it is only a question of time before it erupts.

R25: A 28-year-old woman (mother of 3) living in Stamford Hill. She has never experienced any form of antisemitism, nor knows anyone who has. She feels that the community is living in a comfortable tolerant society on a day-to-day basis. Be that as it may, she is conscious that there is an inherent hatred in the society and that things can change any minute.

360 R26: A 46-year-old Rabbi living in Stamford Hill (father of 10) and headmaster of a secondary charedi boys school in North West London. He has personally never felt threatened in anyway. He feels that the community feels more comfortable in Stamford Hill than they have ever been. He has noticed that previous non Jewish teachers he had employed have made discriminatory remarks and that he felt enraged by some of the Halachas of the Orthodox. R26 used Torah context when placing blame on the Jews, stating that antisemitic incidents are a reminder by Hashem that the Jews are assimilating and working too hard at being similar to the non-Jews. He personally makes a concerted effort to go out of his way to be pleasant to non-Jews who he comes across – this is his strategy in minimising antisemitism.

R27: A 42-year-old married woman from Stamford Hill (mother of 8), the head of Early Years in a Primary school. She has not experienced any antisemitism since her childhood but senses that there is some fear in the community. Her

11-year-old daughter was shouted at walking on the streets alone recently.

Whilst she felt sorry that her daughter had this experience, she sees it as part of the life of a Jew. She experienced some name calling as a child and now it is the turn of her daughter.

R28: A 37 male from Stamford Hill (father of 3), property developer who has regular dealings with the outside world. He feels that whereas antisemitism manifested itself in a physical way when he was a child, now there is less violence but a deep feel of inherent hate. He will choose to fly El Al over BA despite the financial incentives of flying BA and, out of fear of rejection, he would always notify homeowners, from whom he is renting a holiday home, that

361 he is Jewish. Whilst on the outset the community seems comfortable, he does not feel at ease living in London as a Jew.

362 APPENDIX 8

List of Abbreviations

CST – Community Security Trust

CSEW – Crime Survey for England and Wales

FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

JPR – Jewish Policy Research

IHRA - International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

363 References

Abu-Ras, W. M. and Suarez, Z. E. (2009) ‘Muslim men and women’s perception of discrimination, hate crimes and PTSD symptoms post 9/11’, Traumatology,

15(3), pp. 48-63.

ADL (2017) ADL audit: U.S. anti-semitic incidents surged in 2016-2017.

Available at: https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/Anti-

Semitic%20Audit%20Print_vf2.pdf (Accessed: 31 January 2018).

Agnew, R. (2002) ‘Experienced, vicarious and anticipated strain: an exploratory study on physical victimisation and delinquency', Justice Quarterly, 19, pp. 603-

32.

Ahmad, N. M. (2004) ‘A rage shared by law: Post-9/11 racial violence as crimes of passion’, California Law Review, 92, pp. 1261- 1330.

Ai, A.L., and Park, C.L. (2005) ‘Possibilities of the positive following violence and trauma: informing the coming decade of research’, Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 20(2) pp. 242-250.

All Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism (2006) Report of the All-

Party Parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism. Available at: http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=1274 (Accessed: 19 August 2018).

All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism (2015) Report of the All-

Party Parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism. Available at:

364 https://www.antisemitism.org.uk/files/cj3e6rg8y906h0104uh8bojao/cj4mu8p40

000x01455ae3ae66 (Accessed: 8 May 2018).

Anti-Defamation League (2016) ADL Audit: Anti-Semitic Assaults Rise

Dramatically Across the Country in 2015. Available at: https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-audit-anti-semitic-assaults-rise- dramatically-across-the-country-in-2015 (Accessed: 17 May 2017).

Ardley, J. (2005) ‘Hate crimes: A brief review’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 25(12), pp. 54-66.

Arendt, H. (1966) The origins of totalitarianism, New edn. New York: Harcourt,

Brace & World.

Association of Chief Police Officers (2005) Hate crime: Delivering a quality service – Good practice and tactical guidance. Available at: http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/pdf/tacticalguidance.pdf (Accessed: 22

March 2017).

Association of Chief Police Officers (2009) ACPO comment on hate crime action plan. Available at: http://www.cjp.org.uk/news/archive/acpo-comment- on-hate-crime-action-plan-14-09-09/ (Accessed: 4 June 2018).

Awan, I. (2013) Victims of Anti-Muslim hate: written evidence submitted to the

All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia. Birmingham: Birmingham City

365 University. Available at: https://tellmamauk.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/appg.pdf (Accessed: 19 August 2018).

Awan, I. and Zempi, I. (2015) We fear for our lives: offline and online experiences of anti-Muslim hostility. Available at: http://tellmamauk.org/we- fear-for-our-lives-offline-and-online-experiences-of-anti-muslim-hostility/

(Accessed: 19 August 2018).

Awan, I. and Zempi, I. (2017) ‘I will blow your face off – virtual and physical world anti-Muslim hate crime', British Journal of Criminology, 57(2), pp.362-

380.

Bachman, R., Randolph, A. and Brown, B. (2011) ‘Predicting perceptions of fear at school and going to and from school for African American and white students: the effects of school security measures’, Youth and Society, 43(2), pp. 705-726.

Bard, M. and Sangrey, D. (1986) The crime victim’s book. 2nd edn. New York:

Brunner/Mazel.

Barendt, E. (2005) Freedom of Speech, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Barnett, E. (2014) ‘Gaza conflict: as a British Jew, I am now scared to talk about

Israel and Gaza’, The Telegraph, 23 July. Available at: http:///www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10983417/Gaza-conflict-As-a-

366 British-Jew-I-am-now-scared-to-talk-about-Israel-and-Gaza.html (Accessed:

18 August 2018).

BBC News (2006) ‘Warning of “anti-Semitic tsunami”’. BBC, 1 January.

Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4573052.stm (Accessed: 27 June

2016).

BBC News (2014) ‘UK terror threat level raised to “severe”’. BBC, 29 August.

Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28986271 (Accessed: 2 November

2016).

BBC News (2016) ‘Race and religious hate crimes rose 41% after EU vote’.

BBC, 13 October. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-

37640982 (Accessed: 31 October 2016).

BBC News (2016) ‘Nottinghamshire Police records misogyny as a hate crime’.

BBC, 13 July. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england- nottinghamshire-36775398 (Accessed: 6 February 2018).

BBC News (2018) ‘Corbyn and anti-Semitism meeting “disappointing” Jewish leaders say’. BBC, 24 April. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-

43887223 (Accessed: 5 June 2018).

BBC News (2018) A guide to Labour Party antisemitism. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45030552 (Accessed: 8 October 2018).

367 Bell, J. G. and Perry, B. (2015) ‘Outside looking in: the community impacts of anti-lesbian, gay and bisexual hate crime’, Journal of Homosexuality, 62(1), pp.

98-120.

Berg, B. L. (2004) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences.

London: Allyn and Bacon.

Berger, P. L. and Luckman, T. (1967) The social construction of reality: a treatise in sociology of knowledge. New York: Irvington Publishers.

Berger, P.L. (1979) Facing up to modernity. London: Penguin.

Bloom, W. (1990) Personal identity, national identity and international relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Boeckmann, R. and Liew, J. (2002) ‘Hate speech: Asian American students’ justice judgments and psychological responses’, Journal of Social Issues,

58(2), pp. 363-381.

Boeckmann, R. and Turpin-Petrosino, C. (2002) ‘Understanding the harm of hate crime’, Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), pp. 207-225.

368 Bonner, A. and Tolhurst, G. (2002) ‘Insider/Outsider perspectives of participant observation’, Nurse Researcher, 9(4), pp.7-19.

Bourne, N. (2018) 'Anti-Semitism', Hansard: House of Lords debates, 26 June,

792, c. 96. Available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2018-06-

26/debates/051524AE-B5FD-4FF0-BD26-75229CD2C4C8/Anti-Semitism

(Accessed: 18 August 2018).

Bowling, B. (1993) ‘Racial harassment and the process of victimisation’, British

Journal of Criminology, 33(2), pp. 231-250.

Bowling, B. (1999) Violent racism: victimisation, policing and social context.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bowling, B. (2003) ‘Racial harassment and the process of victimization: conceptual and methodological implications for the local crime survey’, in Perry,

B. (ed.) Hate and bias crime: a reader. London: Routledge, pp. 61-76.

Bowling, B. and Phillips, C. (2003) ‘Racism, crime and prejudice. Developing minority perspective’, The British Journal of Criminology, 43(2), pp. 269-290.

Branscrombe, N. R. et al. (1999) ‘The context and content of social identity threat’, in Ellemers, N. and Spears, R. (eds.) Social identity: context, commitment, content. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd., pp. 35-58.

369 Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’.

Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), p.83.

Braungart, M.M., Braungart, R.G. and Hoyer, W.J. (1980) ‘Age, sex and social factors in fear of crime’, Sociological Focus, 13, pp. 55 – 66.

Breakwell, G. M. (1986) Coping with threatened identity. London: Methuen.

Brown, M.D. (2002) ‘Multiple meanings of the hijab in contemporary France’ in

W.J. F. Keenan (ed.) Dressed to Impress: Looking the Part. Oxford: Berg, pp.

105-21.

Brown, R. (2010) Prejudice: its social psychology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Brown, R. et al. (2016) Findings from the Sussex hate crime project. Project

Report. House of Commons. Available at: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedoc ument/home-affairs-committee/hate-crime-and-its-violent- consequences/written/36612.html (Accessed: 6 June 2017).

Bryman, A. (2008) Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Campaign Against Antisemitism (2017) Antisemitism barometer

2017. Available at: https://antisemitism.uk/wp- content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf (Accessed: 24

January 2018).

370

Campaign Against Antisemitism (2018) Humiliation for CPS as Neo-Nazi leader

Jeremy Bedford-Turner handed 12-month sentence over ‘Let’s free England from Jewish control’ speech, following CAA legal victory, Available at: https://antisemitism.uk/humiliation-for-cps-as-neo-nazi-leader-jeremy-bedford- turner-handed-12-month-sentence-over-lets-free-england-from-jewish-control- speech-following-caa-legal- victory/?mc_cid=c44c244bd7&mc_eid=47f88a69d8 (Accessed: 19 June 2018).

Campaign Against Antisemitism (2018) CAA says Labour Party adopting of

International definition of antisemitism is just the first step. Available at: https://antisemitism.uk/caa-says-labour-partys-adoption-of-international- definition-of-antisemitism-is-just-the-first-step/ (Accessed: 8 October 2018).

Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959) ‘Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix’, Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), pp. 81 – 105.

Carlgren, A. and Aress, A. (2006) 'Summary: racism and xenophobia in

Sweden in 2004', in Rasism och främlingsfientlighet i Sverige,

Integrationsverkets rapportserie. Available at: http://integrationsrapporter.mkcentrum.se/wp-admin/wp- content/uploads/2005-02.pdf (Accessed: 28 November 2017).

Carter, R. T. (2007a) ‘Clarification and purpose of the race-based traumatic stress injury model’, The Counselling Psychologist, 35, pp. 144-154.

371 Carter, R. T. (2007b) ‘Racism and psychological and emotional injury: recognizing and assessing race-based traumatic stress’, The Counselling

Psychologist, 35, pp. 13-105.

Chakraborti, N. (2009) ‘A glass half full? Assessing progress in the policing of hate crime’, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(2), pp. 121–128.

Chakraborti, N. (2015) ‘Re-thinking hate crime: fresh challenges for policy and practice’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30(10), pp. 1738–1754. doi:

10.1177/0886260514548581.

Chakraborti, N. (2015) ‘Framing the boundaries of hate crime’, in Hall, N. et al.

(eds.) The Routledge international handbook on hate crime. London:

Routledge, pp. 13-23.

Chakraborti, N. and Garland, J. (2012) ‘Reconceptualising hate crime victimization through the lens of vulnerability and ‘difference’, Theoretical

Criminology, 16(4), pp. 499-514.

Chakraborti, N., Garland, J. and Hardy, S.J. (2014) The Leicester hate crime project: findings and conclusions. Leicester: University of Leicester.

Chakraborti, N. and Garland, J. (2015) Hate crime; impact, causes and responses. London: Sage.

372 Chanes, J.A. (2004) Antisemitism: A Reference Handbook, University of

Michigan: ABC-CLIO.

Cherney, A. and Chui, W.H. (2008) ‘Policing ethnically and culturally diverse communities’, in Broadhurst, R. and Davies, S. (eds.) Policing in context: an

Introduction to police work in Australia South Melbourne. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, pp. 160-173.

Chongatera, G. (2013) ‘Hate-crime victimization and fear of hate crime among racially visible people in Canada: The role of income as a mediating factor’,

Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 11(1), pp. 44–64.

Choudhury, T. and Fenwick, H. (2011) ‘The Impact of Counter - Terrorism

Measures on Muslim Communities’, International review of Law, Computers and Technology, vol. 25 pp. 151-181.

Christie, N. (1986) ‘The ideal victim’, in Fattah, E. (ed.) From crime policy to victim policy: reorienting the justice system. London: Macmillan, pp. 17-30.

Christie, N. (2008) ‘Fertile ground for victim-movements’, Keynote Speech at the 3rd Nordic Conference on Victimology and Victim Support, Conference

Report, Helsinki, March 3-5.

Churchill, G. A. (1996) Basic marketing research. 3rd edn., Fort Worth, TX: The

Dryden Press.

373 Clancy, A. et al. (2001) Crime, policing and justice: the experience of ethnic minorities, findings from the 2000 British Crime Survey. Home Office Research

Study 223. Available at: http://www.lemosandcrane.co.uk/dev/resources/HO%20-

%20Crime,%20policing%20and%20justice.pdf (Accessed: 22 March 2017).

Cohen, E.H. (2004) ‘Components and symbols of ethnic identity: case study in informal education and identity formation in Diaspora’, Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 53(1), pp. 87-112.

Cohen, E. (2010) ‘Jewish identity research: A state of the art’, International

Journal of Jewish Education Research, (1), pp. 7 – 48.

College of Policing (2014) Hate crime operational guidance. Coventry: College of Policing.

Collier, H. (2017) 'Met police "failing victims of crime and facing major shortage of detectives"', Evening Standard, 2 March. Available at: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/met-police-failing-victims-of- crime-and-facing-major-shortage-of-detectives-a3479556.html (Accessed: 8

May 2018).

Comstock, G. (1991) Violence against lesbian and gay men. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Community Security Trust (2014) Antisemitic discourse report. Available at:

374 https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2015/11/27/antisemitic-discourse-report-2014

(Accessed: 17 May 2016).

Community Security Trust (2015) Antisemitic incidents report 2014. Available at: https://cst.org.uk/docs/Incidents%20Report%202014.pdf (Accessed: 4

March 2016).

Community Security Trust (2016) Antisemitic incidents report 2015. Available at:

https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/1/9/Incidents_Report_2015.pdf

(Accessed: 4 March 2016).

Community Security Trust (2017) Antisemitic incidents report 2016. Available at: https://cst.org.uk/data/file/b/e/Incidents%20Report%202016.1486376547.pdf

(Accessed: 21 February 2017).

Community Security Trust (2017) Antisemitic incidents report 2017. Available at: https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/a/b/IR17.pdf (Accessed: 5 February 2018).

Community Security Trust (2018a) Antisemitic incidents January - June 2018.

Available at: https://cst.org.uk/data/file/e/5/Incidents%20Report%20January-

June%202018.1532518541.pdf (Accessed: 5 February 2019).

Community Security Trust (2018b) CST welcomes over 30 CCTV contactors and the Police at second CCTV forum. Available at:

375 https://cst.org.uk/news/latest-news/2018/03/22/cst-welcomes-over-30-cctv- contractors-and-the-police-at-second-cctv-forum (Accessed: 23 August 2018).

Community Security Trust (2018c) Antisemitic incidents report 2018. Available at: https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/2/9/Incidents%20Report%202018%20-

%20web.pdf (Accessed: 5 February 2019).

Conklin, J.E. (1975) The impact of crime. New York: Macmillan.

Cowburn, A. (2018) ‘Jeremy Corbyn apologises for “pain and hurt” caused by antisemitism in Labour as Jewish leaders plan demonstration’, The

Independent, 25 March. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-jeremy- corbyn-facebook-jewish-board-deputies-a8273506.html. (Accessed: 5 June

2018).

CPS (2015) Victim and witness satisfaction survey. Available at: https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/victims_witnesses/cps

_victim_and_witness_survey_sept_2015.pdf (Accessed: 11 June 2018).

Craig, K.M. (2002) ‘Examining hate motivated aggression: a review of the social psychological literature on hate crimes as a distinct form of aggression’, in

Perry, B. (ed.) Hate and bias crime: a reader. London: Routledge, pp. 117-130.

Creswell, J. (2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among

Five Approaches. London: Sage.

376

Crown Prosecution Service (no date) Hate crime and crimes against older people. Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/hate_crime/

(Accessed: 24 May 2017).

Curtis, B. and Curtis, C. (2011) Social Research. London: Sage.

Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Smith, G. and Washburn, S. (2000). ‘Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: Examples in the geography of health’. Social Science and Medicine, 50(7–8), pp. 1001–1014.

DeLyser, D. (2001) ‘“Do you really live here?” Thoughts on insider research’,

Geographical Review, 91(1-2), pp. 441-453.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2016) Government response to Home Affairs Committee report: ‘Anti-Semitism in the UK’ (Cm

9386). Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons- committees/home-affairs/CM9386-Select-Comittee-Response-Antisemitism- in-UK.pdf (Accessed: 2 July 2018).

Derby, S. (2017) "A time to keep silent and a time to speak?" Underreporting hate crime by Charedi Jews of Stamford Hill, London. London: Interfaith

Matters. Available at file:///C:/Users/21301263/Downloads/REPORT%20A%20Time%20To%20Kee p%20Silent%20And%20A%20Time%20To%20Speak%20under%20reporting

377 %20hate%20crime%20by%20Charedi%20Jews%20of%20Stamford%20Hill.p df (Accessed: 19 August 2018).

Dignan, J. (2006) Understanding crime data. Buckingham: Open University

Press.

Doherty, R. (2016) ‘Study by Stamford Hill Shomrim reveals 32 antisemitic incidents in a month’, The JC, 11 October. Available at: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/study-by-stamford-hill-shomrim-reveals-

32-antisemitic-incidents-in-a-month-1.53993 (Accessed: 10 May 2018).

Dominiczak, P. (2016) ‘Chief Rabbi: Labour has a "severe" problem with antisemitism’, The Telegraph, 4 May. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/chief-rabbi-labour-has-a- severe-problem-with-anti-semitism/(Accessed: 25 January 2018).

Donin, H. (1972) To be a Jew: a guide to Jewish observance in contemporary life. Selected and compiled from the Shulhan Arukh and Responsa literature, and providing a rationale for the laws and the traditions. New York: Basic

Books.

Dor-Shav, Z. (1990) ‘Development of an ethnic self-definition: the ethnic self- concept “Jew” among Israeli children’, International Journal of Behavioural

Development, 13(3), pp. 317-332.

378 Dunn P. (2007) ‘Matching service delivery to need’ in Walklate, S. (ed.)

Handbook of Victims and Victimology. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 255-81.

Durham Constabulary (no date) Sir Robert Peel 's Principles of Law

Enforcement 1829. Available at: https://www.durham.police.uk/About-

Us/Documents/Peels_Principles_Of_Law_Enforcement.pdf (Accessed: 26

April 2018).

Durkheim, E. (1915) The elementary forms of the religious life, a study in religious sociology. New York; Free Press.

Dzelme, I. (2008) Psychological effects of hate crime. Available at: http://cilvektiesibas.org.lv/site/attachments/30/01/2012/Naida_noziegums_EN

G_cietusajiem_Internetam.pdf (Accessed: 23 March 2017).

Edmonds, D. (2017) Labour party ‘not safe for Jews’ after dropping inquiry into

Oxford Uni anti-semitism. Available at: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/20/labour-party-not-safe-jews- dropping-inquiry-oxford-uni-anti-semitism/ (Accessed: 21 February 2017).

Ehrlich, H., Larcom, B.E.K. and Purvis, R.D. (1994) ‘The traumatic effects of ethnoviolence’, in Perry, B. (ed.) Hate and bias crime: a reader. New York:

Routledge, pp. 153-170.

Ephraim, M. (2014) ‘A new strain of antisemitism is on the rise’, The Telegraph,

27 August. Available at:

379 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11059132/A-new-strain-of-anti-

Semitism-is-on-the-rise.html (Accessed: 2 November 2016).

EU Times (2017) ‘London mass brawl: Muslims chase Jews with bats, knives and machetes, Riot Police called in’, EU Times, 21 June.

Available at: http://www.eutimes.net/2017/06/london-mass-brawl-muslims- chase-jews-with-bats-knives-and-machetes-riot-police-called-in/ (Accessed:

25 January 2018).

Faulkner, S.L. and Hecht, M.L. (2011) ‘The negotiation of closetable identities: a narrative analysis of LGBTQ Jewish identity’, Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 28(6), pp. 829-847.

FBI (2014) Hate crime statistics Available at: https://www.fbi.gov/about- us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/victims_final (Accessed: 22 March

2017).

FBI (2017) Hate Crime statistics 2016 Available at: https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate- crime/2016 (Accessed: 6 February 2018).

Feagin, J., Vera, H. and Imani, N. (1996) ‘The Agony of Education: Black

Students at White Colleges and Universities’, Psychology Press. Routledge:

New York.

Feder, A. et. al. (2013) ‘Coping and PTSD symptoms in Pakistani earthquake survivors: purpose in life, religious coping and social support’, Journal of

380 Affective Disorders, 147, pp. 156-163.

Felsenstein, F. (1995) ‘Anti-semitic stereotypes: a paradigm of otherness in

English popular culture’, Baltimore: John Hopkins University, pp. 1660-1830.

Felson, R.B. et. al. (2002) ‘Reasons for reporting and not reporting domestic violence to the police’, Criminology, 40(3), pp. 617-647.

Ferraro, K. and LaGrange, R. (1987) ‘The measurement of fear and crime’,

Sociological Inquiry, 57(1), pp. 70-101.

Flick, U. (2006) An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.

Foxman, A. (2007) The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of the

Jewish Control, Basinkstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

FRA (2012) Antisemitism: summary overview of the situation in the European

Union 2001-2011. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/ antisemitism-summary-overview-situation-europeanunion-2001-2011-0

(Accessed: 27 June 2018)

FRA (2013) Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU Member States: experiences and perceptions of antisemitism. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/discrimination-and-hate-crime- against-jews-eu-member-states-experiences-and (Accessed: 27 June 2018).

381 Freeman, H. (2014) ‘Why, as a British Jew, I’m terrified by the anti-Semitism suddenly sweeping my country’, Mail Online, 9 August. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2720381/Why-British-Jew-I-m- terrified-antisemitism-suddenly-sweeping-country.html (Accessed: 22 March

2017).

Frieze, I., Hymer, S. and Greenberg, M. (1987) ‘Describing the crime victim: psychological reactions to victimisation’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18(4), pp. 299-315.

Furedi, F. (2006) The Culture of Fear Revisited. London: Continuum.

Gadd, D. (2009) ‘Aggravating Racism and Elusive Motivation’. The British

Journal of Criminology, 49(7), pp. 755-771.

Galdas, P. (2017) ‘Revisiting Bias in Qualitative Research: Reflections on its relationship with funding and impact’. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 16, pp.1-2.

Garofalo, J. (1979). ‘Victimization and the Fear of Crime’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16, pp. 80-97.

Garcia, L. and McDevitt, J. (1999) The psychological and behavioural effects of bias and non-bias motivated assault. U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice. Available at:

382 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/192010.pdf (Accessed: 22 March

2017).

Garnets, L., Herek, G. and Levy, B. (1992) ‘Violence and victimization of lesbians and gay men: mental health consequences’, in Herek, G. and Berrill,

K. (eds.) Hate crimes: confronting violence against lesbians and gay men.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 207-226.

Gerstensfeld, P. B. (1992) ‘Smile when you call me that! The problems with punishing hate motivated behaviour’, Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 10(2), pp. 259-285.

Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2013) Hate crimes: causes, controls and controversies. 3rd edn. London: Sage.

Gerstenfeld, M. (2016) ‘Anti-Semitism is still alive and well in the British Labour

Party’, Israel National News, 25 October. Available at: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19662 (Accessed: 11

September 2017).

Giannasi, P. (2014) ‘Academia from a practitioner’s perspective: a reflection on the changes in the relationship between academia, policing and government in a hate crime context’, in Chakraborti, N. and Garland, J. (eds.) Responding to

Hate Crime: The Case of Connecting Policy and Research. Bristol: Policy

Press, pp. 27-38.

383 Gidley, B. (2014) 50 days in the summer: Gaza, political protest and antisemitism in the UK. Sub-Report Commissioned to Assist the All-

Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism. Available at: http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/BenGidley50daysinthesummerAPPGAAsubreport-

1.pdf (Accessed: 22 March 2017).

Gilbey, R. (2004) ‘Mr Bean shows his Serious Side’. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/rowan-atkinson-mr-bean-shows- his-serious-side-683230.html. (Accessed: 9 July 2018).

Gilligan, R. (2000) ‘Adversity, resilience and young people: the protective value of positive school and spare time experiences’, Children and Society, 14, pp.

37–47.

Githens-Mazer, J. and Lambert, R. (2010) Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime: a London case study. European Muslim Research Centre

(EMRC). Available at: https://www.counterextremism.org/resources/details/id/107/islamophobia-and- anti-muslim-hate-crime-a-london-case-study (Accessed: 22 March 2017).

Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin

Books.

Goffman, E. (1968) Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. New

York: Touchstone.

384

Goffman, E. (1971) Relations in public: microstudies of the public order.

London: Allen Lane.

Goffman, E. (1986) Frame analysis: an essay on the organisation of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Goldhill, O. (2015) ‘Holocaust survivors: 70 years of trauma: I could cry nonstop, even now’, Daily Telegraph, 26 January www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11370513/Holocaust-survivors-70- years-of-trauma-I-could-cry-nonstop-even-now.html. (Accessed: 5 December

2017).

Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (2000) ‘Culture, communications and political economy’, in Curran, J. and Gurevitch, M. (eds.), Mass media and society.

London: Arnold, pp. 70-92.

Goldscheider, C. (1986) Jewish continuity and change: emerging patterns in

America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Goode, E. and Ben-Yehuda, N. (2009) Moral panics: the social construction of deviance. 2nd edn. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Goodey, J. (2005) Victims and victimology: research, policy and practice.

Harlow: Longman.

385 Gottfredson, M.R. and Gottfredson, D.M. (1988) Decision making in criminal justice. 2nd edn. New York, NY: Plenum.

Graham, D. and Boyd, J. (2010) Committed, concerned and conciliatory: the attitudes of Jews in Britain towards Israel. Initial findings from the 2010 Israel survey. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

Graham, D. (2011) Census results (England and Wales) initial insights into

Jewish neighbourhoods. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

Graham, D., Staetsky, L. and Boyd, J. (2014) Jews in the United Kingdom in

2013: preliminary findings from the National Jewish Community survey.

London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Available at: http://www.jpr.org.uk/documents/JPR_Jews_in_the_UK_in_2013_NJCS_preli minary_findings.Feb.%202014.pdf (Accessed: 21 December 2017).

Graham, D and Boyd, J (2017) ‘Understanding anti-Semitic hate crime: Do the experiences, perceptions and behaviour of Jews vary by gender, age and religiosity?’, London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

Haavisto, C. and Petersson, B. (2013) ‘Invandrare och integration i traditionell nyhetsjournalistik och sociala medier [Immigrants and integration in traditional media and social media]’, in Peterson, B. and Johansson, C. (eds.). Stockholm,

Sweden: Liber, pp. 215-246.

386 Haji, R. et al. (2010) ‘A multidimensional approach to identity: religious and cultural identity in young Jewish Canadians, group processes and intergroup relationships’, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 14(1), pp. 3-18.

Hamm, M.S. (1994) ‘A modified social control theory of terrorism: an empirical and ethnographic assessment of American Neo-Nazi skinheads’, in Hamm, M.

(ed.) Hate crime: international perspectives on causes and control. Cincinatti,

OH: Anderson Publishing Co., pp. 105-149.

Hamm, M.S. (1998) ‘Terrorism, hate crime, and the anti-government violence: a review of the research’, in Kushner, H.W. (ed.) The future of terrorism: violence in the new millennium. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 59 – 96.

Hammond, T (1986) ‘Agenda control, organizational structure, and bureaucratic politics’. American Journal of Political Science, 30(2), pp.379–420.

Hare, I. (2006) ‘Crosses, Crescents and Sacred Cows: Criminalising Incitement to Religious Hatred’, Public Law, 3: pp. 521-538.

Harris, B. (2004) Arranging prejudice: exploring hate crime in post-apartheid

South Africa. Race and citizenship in transition series. Available at: http://www.csvr.org.za/docs/racism/arrangingprejudice.pdf (Accessed: 22

March 17).

387 Hastings, C (2005) ‘Chief Rabbi warns of anti-Semitic tsunami’, The Telegraph.

Available at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1506746/Chief-Rabbi- warns-of-anti-Semitic-tsunami.html (Accessed: 26 January 2018).

Heckathorn, D. D. (1997) ‘Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden problems’. Social Problems, 44, pp.174–199.

Hein, L. and Scharer, M. (2013) ‘Who cares if it is a hate crime? Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender hate crimes - mental health implications and interventions’, Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 49(2), pp. 84-93.

Helm, T. (2018) ‘Labour MPs challenge Corbyn on antisemitism and Brexit’,

The Observer, 24 March. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/24/corbyn-faces-labour-mps- challenge-antisemitism-and-brexit (Accessed: 19 June 2018).

Henderson, T. L., Roberto, K.A. and Kam, Y. (2010) ‘Older adult responses to hurricane Katrina: daily hassles and coping strategies’, Journal of Applied

Gerontology, 29, pp. 48-69.

Herek, G. M. (1989). ‘Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men: Issues for research and policy’. American Psychologist, 44, pp.948–955.

Herek, G., Gillis, R. and Cogan, J. (1999) ‘Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimisation among lesbian, gay and bisexual adults’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), pp. 945-951.

388

Herek, G., Cogan, J. and Gillis, R. (2002) ‘Victim experiences in hate crimes based on sexual orientation’, Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), pp. 319-340.

Hesse, B., Rari, D. K., Bennett, C. and McGilchrist, P. (1992) Beneath the

Surface: Racial Harassment Aldershot: Avebury.

Hirsh, D. (2007) Anti-Zionism and antisemitism: cosmopolitan reflections. Yale

Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism Working Paper Series.

Available at: http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/index.htm

(Accessed: 19 August 2018).

HM Government (2012) Challenge it, report it, stop it: the Government’s plan to tackle hate crime. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

97849/action-plan.pdf (Accessed: 29 August 2017).

Hoffman, S. (2015) Submission to the APPG on antisemitism parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism emanating from the Middle East conflict of July/August

2014. Available at: http://parliamentstreet.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/Antisemitism-Report1.pdf?b7c918 (Accessed: 26

April 2018).

Holman, C. and Holman, N. (2002) ‘Torah, Worship and Acts of Loving

Kindness: Baseline Indicators for the Charedi Community in Stamford Hill’ De

Montfort University, Leicester.

389

Holstein, J.A. and Miller, G. (1990) ‘Rethinking victimisation; an interactional approach to victimology, Symbolic Interaction, 13(1), pp. 103-122.

Home Affairs Committee (2016) Antisemitism in the UK. HC 136. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/1

36.pdf (Accessed: 1 November 2016).

Home Office (1989) The response to racial attacks and harassment: guidance for the statutory agencies, report of the Inter-departmental Racial Attacks

Group. London: Home Office.

Home Office, Office for National Statistics and the Ministry of Justice (2013) An overview of hate crime in England and Wales. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/26635

8/hate-crime-2013.pdf (Accessed: 22 March 2017).

Home Office (2015) Hate crime, England and Wales, 2014 to 2015. Statistical

Bulletin 05/15. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/467366/hosb0515.pdf (Accessed: 27 October 2016).

Home Office (2016) Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015/16. Statistical

Bulletin 11/16. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

559319/hate-crime-1516-hosb1116.pdf (Accessed: 14 November 2016).

390

Home Office (2016) Action against hate: the UK Government’s plan for tackling hate crime. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

543679/Action_Against_Hate_-

_UK_Government_s_Plan_to_Tackle_Hate_Crime_2016.pdf (Accessed: 10

May 2017).

Home Office (2017) Hate crime, England and Wales, 2016/17. Statistical

Bulletin 10/17. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf (Accessed: 30 January 2017).

Hoshmand, L.T. (1989) ‘Alternate research paradigms: a review and teaching proposal’. The Counselling Psychologist, 17, pp.3-79.

Hudson, L. and Ozanne, J. (1988) ‘Alternative ways of seeking knowledge in consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), pp. 508–521.

Hund, W., Mills, C.W. and Sebastiani, S. (2015) Simianzation: Apes, Gender,

Class and Race (Racism Analysis- Series 6: Yearbooks). London: LIT Verlag.

Hunt, S. (2005) Religion and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

391 Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979) ‘Characterological versus behavioural self-blame: inquiries into depression and rape’, Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 37(10), pp. 1798-1809.

Janoff-Bulman, R. and Frieze, I. (1983) ‘A theoretical perspective for understanding reactions to victimisation’, Journal of Social Issues, 39(2), pp. 1-

17.

Jenness, V. and Broad, K. (1997) Hate crimes: new social movements and the politics of violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Iganski, P. (2001) ‘Hate crimes hurt more’, American Behavioural Scientist,

45(4), pp. 626-638.

Iganski, P. (2007) ‘Too few Jews to count? Police monitoring of hate crime against Jews in the United Kingdom’, American Behavioural Scientist, 51(2) pp.

232-245.

Iganski, P. (2008) ‘Hate crime’ and the city. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Iganski, P. (2008) ‘Criminal law and the routine activity of “hate crime”’,

Liverpool Law Review, 29, pp. 1-17.

Iganski, P. (2013) ‘“Anti-semitism” and anti-Jewish “hatred”: conceptual, political and legal challenges’, in Phillips, C. & Webster, C. (eds.), New directions in race ethnicity and crime. London: Routledge, pp. 18-36.

392

Iganski, P., Kielinger, V. and Paterson, S. (2005) Hate crimes against London’s

Jews: an analysis of incidents recorded by the Metropolitan police service 2001-

2004. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

Iganski, P. and Lagou, S. (2014) ‘The personal injuries of hate crime’ in Hall, N. et al. (eds.) The Routledge international handbook on hate crime. London:

Routledge, pp. 34-46.

Innes, M. (2004) ‘Signal crimes and signal disorders: notes on deviance as communicative action’, British Journal of Sociology, 55(3), pp. 335-355.

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (2016) Working Definition of

Antisemitism. Available at: http://holocaustremembrance.com/media- room/stories/working-definition-antisemitism (Accessed: 1 November 2016).

Jackson, J. and Gray, E. (2010) ‘Functional fear and public insecurities about crime’, British Journal of Criminology, 50(1), pp. 37-58.

Jacobs, J. and Potter, K. (1998) Hate crimes: criminal law and identity politics.

New York: Oxford University Press.

James, W. (1980) Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.

Jarman, N. and Tennant, A. (2003) ‘An acceptable prejudice? Homophobic violence and harassment in Northern Ireland’. Available

393 at: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/icr/reports/jarman03homophobic.pdf (Accessed: 19

August 2018).

Jenness, V. and Broad, K. (1998) Hate crimes: new social movements and the politics of violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Jenness, V. and Grattett, R. (2001) Making hate a crime: from social movement to law enforcement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Jewish Chronicle (2017) 'Teenager who threw gas canisters at Jewish shoppers jailed for six months', The JC, 2 February. Available at: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/teenager-who-threw-gas-canisters- at-jewish-shoppers-jailed-for-six-months-1.431909 (Accessed: 15

November 2017).

Jewish News (2017) Shomrim volunteers tally arrests for anti-

Semitism. Available at: http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/shomrim-2016- arrests/ (Accessed: 26 April 2018).

Kahane, M. (1987) Uncomfortable questions for comfortable Jews. New Jersey:

Lyle Stuart Inc.

Kaplan, M. (1991) The making of the Jewish middle class: women, family, and identity in imperial Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.

394 Karlsen, S. (2007) Ethnic inequalities in health: the impact of racism. Better

Health Briefing papers 3. London: Race Equality Foundation.

Kelling, G. and Wilson, J. (1982) ‘Broken windows: the police and neighbourhood safety’, Atlantic Monthly, March, pp. 29-38.

Kelly, L. (1987) ‘The continuum of sexual violence’, in Hammer, J. and

Maynard, M. (eds) Women, violence and social control. Basingstoke:

Macmillan, pp. 46-60.

Kentish, B. (2017) ‘Quarter of Jewish students in UK fear anti-semitic attacks on campus’, The Independent, 3 April. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jewish-students-uk- british-universities-anti-semitism-israel-bds-national-union-students-nus- malia-a7665111.html (Accessed: 19 August 2018).

Klug, B. (2003) ‘Interrogating new anti-Semitism’, Ethnic and Racial Studies,

36(3), pp. 468-482.

Koenig, H.G., Larson, D.B., and Larson, S.S. (2001). Religion and Coping with

Serious Medical Illness. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 35(3), pp. 352–359.

Koenig, H.G. (2006) In the wake of disaster: Religious responses to terrorism and catastrophe. Templeton Foundation Press: Philadelphia.

395 Koestler, A. (1949) ‘Promise and fulfilment: Palestine 1917 – 1949’. London:

Macmillan, p. 335.

Kulkarni, M.R. et. al. (2011) ‘Witnessing versus experiencing direct violence in childhood correlates of adulthood PTSD’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

26(6), pp. 1264-1281.

Lambert, S. D. and Loiselle, C. G. (2008), ‘Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, pp.

228–237.

Lane, J. et. al. (2014) ‘Fear of crime in the United States: causes, consequences, and contradictions’. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1994) Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.

Law Commission (2013) Hate crime: the case for extending the existing offences. Summary for non-specialists. Law Commission Consultation Paper

No. 213. Available at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/cp213_hate_crime_summary.pdf (Accessed: 22

March 17).

Lawrence, F. M. (1999) Punishing hate: bias crimes under American law.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

396 Leets, L. (2002) ‘Experiencing hate speech: perceptions and responses to antisemitism and antigay speech’, Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), pp. 341-361.

Lerner, M. (1980) The belief in a just world: a fundamental delusion. New York,

NY: Plenum Press.

Levin B. (2001) ‘History as a weapon: how extremists deny the Holocaust in

North America’, American Behavioural Scientist, 44, pp. 1001-1031.

Levin, J. and McDevitt, J. (1993) Hate crimes: the rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed. New York: Plenum Press.

Levin, J. and McDevitt, J. (2002) Hate crimes revisited: America’s war on those who are different. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Lewin, K. (1945) Resolving social conflicts, New York: Harper and Row.

Available at http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/17809/1/IVRI%20B%20529.pdf (

Accessed: 16 October 2017).

Lopez, K. and Willis, D. (2004) ‘Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: their contributions to nursing knowledge’. Qualitative Health Research, 14, pp.726-735.

397 Lowndes, V. and Madziva, R. (2016) ‘When I look at this van, it’s not only a van: symbolic objects in the policing of migration’. Critical Social Policy, 36(4), pp.

672 – 692.

Luhtanen, R. and Crocker, J. (1992) ‘A collective self-esteem scale: self- evaluation of one’s social identity’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

18(3), pp. 302-318.

McAreavey, R. and Das, C. (2013) ‘A Delicate Balancing Act: Negotiating with

Gatekeepers for Ethical Research When Researching Minority Communities’.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), pp.113-131.

McDevitt, J. et. al. (2001) ‘Consequences for victims: a comparison of bias and non bias motivated assaults’, American Behavioral Scientist, 45(4), pp. 697-

713.

McDevitt, J., Levin, J. and Bennett, S. (2002) ‘Hate crime offenders: an expanded typology’, Journal of Social Issues 58(2), pp. 303-17.

McGhee, D. (2005) Intolerant Britain? Hate, citizenship and difference,

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Macpherson, W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence

Inquiry (Cmnd. 4262). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

277111/4262.pdf (Accessed: 16 October 2017).

398

Maguire, M. (1980) ‘The impact of burglary on victims’, British Journal of

Criminology, 20, pp.261-276.

Markowitz, F.E., Bellair, P.E., Lisks, A.E. and Liu, J. (2001) ‘Extending social disorganisation theory: modelling the relationships between cohesion, disorder and fear’. Criminology, 39, pp. 293-319.

Mason, G. (2007) ‘Hate crime as a moral category: lessons from the Snowtown case’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(3), pp. 249-271.

Mason-Bish, H. (2013) ‘Examining the boundaries of hate crime: considering age and gender’, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(3), pp. 297-316.

Matthews, T., Johnson, L.M. and Jenks, C. (2011) ‘Does religious involvement generate or inhibit fear of crime’? Religions, 2, pp. 485-503.

Maxfield, M.G. and Babbie, E.R. (2009) Basics of Research Methods for

Criminal Justice and Criminology. 3rd edn. California: Wadsworth, Cengage

Learning.

Mayor of London (2017) A safer city for all Londoners: police and crime plan

2017-2021. London: Greater London Authority. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mopac_police_and_crime_pla n_2017-2021.pdf (Accessed: 11 June 2017).

399 Mead, G.H. (1913) ‘The social self’, in da Silva, F. (ed). GH Mead: A reader.

London: Routledge, pp. 58-62.

Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, self & society: from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mendel, J. (2016) ‘Osborne: Labour antisemitism, a cancer that has to be dealt with’. Available at: https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/osborne-labour-anti- semitism-a-cancer-that-must-be-dealt-with/ (Accessed: 16 July 2018).

Merton, R. (1938) ‘Social structure and anomie’, American Sociological

Review. 3(5), pp. 672–682.

Metropolitan Police (no date) ‘How we collect our data’. Available at: https://www.met.police.uk/stats-and-data/how-we-collect-our- data/ (Accessed: 10 May 2018).

Meyer, D. (2010) ‘Evaluating the severity of hate-motivated violence: intersectional differences among LGBT hate crime victims’, Sociology, 44(5), pp. 980-995.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) ‘Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook’. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mirvis, E. (2016) [Twitter] 4 August. Available at: https://twitter.com/chiefrabbi/

(Accessed: 18 May 2017).

400

Mitchell, D. (2017) Taking Action Against Hate Crime Post-Brexit: Current

Strategies, Progress, Challenges and Next Steps [Panel discussion], Taking

Action Against Hate Crime in Post-Brexit Britain: Protecting Vulnerable Groups and Promoting a Culture of Tolerance and Inclusivity. Public Policy Exchange,

Strand Palace, London. 27 June.

Mol, H. (1976) Identity and the sacred: a sketch for a new social-scientific theory of religion. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

MOPAC, (2014) ‘A hate crime reduction strategy for London 2014-2017’, Mayor of London, Office for Policing and Crime. Available at https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mopac_hate_crime_reduction_ strategy.pdf (Accessed: 7 June 2018).

Moran, L. and Skeggs, B. (2004) Sexuality and the politics of safety. London:

Routledge.

Morgan, J. (2017) 'Anti-Semitic attacks in UK reach record high', Evening

Standard, 27 July. Available at: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/antisemitic-attacks-in-uk-reach- record-high-a3597316.html (Accessed: 18 June 2018).

Murphy, S. (1988) ‘Mediating effects of intrapersonal and social support on mental health 1 and 3 years after a natural disaster’, Journal of Traumatic

Stress, 1(2), pp. 155-172.

401

Murphy, K. and Cherney, A. (2010) Understanding minority group willingness to cooperate with police: Taking another look at legitimacy research. Deakin

University: Geelong.

Musselwhite, K., Cuff, L., McGregor, L., & King, K. M. (2007) ‘The telephone interview is an effective method of data collection in clinical nursing research:

A discussion paper’. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, pp. 1064-

1070.

Mythen, G. (2007) ‘Cultural victimology: are we all victims now?’ in S. Walklate

(ed.) Handbook of Victims and Victimology, Cullompton: Willan.

Mythen, G., Walklate, S. and Khan, F. (2009) ‘”I’m a Muslim, but I’m not a terrorist”: victimisation, risky identities and the performance of safety’’ British

Journal of Criminology, 49(6), pp. 736-754.

Nadal, K. L., et al. (2010) ‘Religious microaggressions in the United States’, in

Sue, D.W. (ed.) Microaggressions and marginality: manifestation, dynamics and impact. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 287-310.

Nelson, N. (2017) ‘One in three British Jews consider leaving the UK fearing hate crime, poll finds’, The Mirror, 20 August. Available at: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/one-three-british-jews-consider-

11016650 (Accessed: 24 January 2018).

402 Neuman, L. (1999) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 4th edn., Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Neusner, J. (2003) Stranger at home: ‘The Holocaust’, Zionism, and American

Judaism. Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Noelle, M. (2009) ‘The psychological and social effects of antibisexual, antigay, antilesbian violence and harassment’ in Perry, B. et al. (ed.) Hate crimes: The consequences of hate crime. Westport: Praeger, pp. 73-105.

NUS (2012) No place for Hate: Hate crimes and incidents in further and higher education: disability, London: National Union of Students.

NUS (2017) The experience of Jewish students in 2016-17. Available at: http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=3190 (Accessed: 24 January 2018).

Office for National Statistics, National Records of Scotland, Northern Ireland

Statistics and Research Agency (2016) 2011 Census aggregate data. UK Data

Service (June 2016). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5257/census/aggregate-2011-1 (Accessed: 22 March

2017).

Omi, M. and Winant, H. (1994) Racial formation in the United States: from the

1960s to the 1990s. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.

403 Open Society Foundations (2011) Unveiling the truth: why 32 Muslim women wear the full-face veil in France, London: Open Society Foundations.

Oryszczuk, S. (2017) ‘Antisemitism at highest level on record’, Jewish News

Online, 2 February. Available at: http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/cst- report-2016/ (Accessed: 21 February 2017).

Parekh, B. (2006) ‘Hate speech: is there a case for banning?’, Public Policy

Review 12(4), pp. 213-223.

Park, C.L. (2005) ‘Religion as a meaning-making framework in coping with life stress’. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), pp. 707-729.

Paterson, S., Kielinger, V. and Fletcher, H. (2008) ‘Women’s experiences of homophobia and transphobia – survey report’, London: Metropolitan Police

Service.

Perry, B. (2001) In the name of hate: understanding hate crimes. New York:

Routledge.

Perry, B. (2003) Hate and bias crime, a reader. New York: Routledge.

Perry, B. (2003) ‘Where do we go from here? Researching hate crime’, Internet

Journal of Criminology, 3, pp. 45-47.

404 Perry, B. (2009) ‘”There’s just places ya’ don’t wanna go”: the segregating impact of hate crime against Native Americans’, Contemporary Justice Review,

12(2), pp. 401-418.

Perry, B. (2009) ‘Racist violence against Native Americans’ in Perry, B. (ed.)

Hate crimes. The victims of hate crime. Westport: Praeger, pp. 1-17.

Perry, B. (2010) ‘No Biggie’: the denial of oppression on campus’, Education,

Citizenship and Social Justice, November 2010, 5(3), pp. 265-79.

Perry, M. and Scheweitzer, F. (2002) Antisemitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Perry, B. and Alvi, S. (2012) ‘We are all vulnerable’: The in terrorem effects of hate crimes’, International Review of Victimology, 18(1), pp. 57-71.

Perry, B. (2014) ‘Exploring the community impacts of hate crime’ in Hall, N. et al. (eds.) The Routledge international handbook on hate crime. London:

Routledge.

Perry, B. (2014) ‘Gendered Islamophobia: hate crime against Muslim women’, Social Identities, 20(1), pp. 74-89.

Perry, K. (2000) ‘Families flee estate hate campaign’. The Guardian, 10 August.

Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/10/childprotection.society2

405 (Accessed: 31 August 2017).

Phillips, C. (2003) 'Racist victimization in England and Wales' in Hawkins, D.F.

(ed.) Violent crime: assessing race and ethnic differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-170. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/10456/1/Racist_victimization_in_England_and_Wal es_%28LSERO%29.doc.pdf (Accessed: 29 November 2017).

Phillips, C. and Sampon, A. (1998) ‘Preventing repeated victimization: an action research project’. British Journal of Criminology, 38(1), pp. 124-144.

Phillips, C. and Bowling, B. (2003) ‘Racism, race and ethnicity: developing minority perspectives in criminology’, British Journal of Criminology 43(2), pp.

269-290.

Phinney, J.S. (1990) ‘Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research’. Psychological Bulletin, 108, pp. 499-514.

Phipps, C. (2017) ‘The Snap: UK threat level is raised to critical after

Manchester bombing’, The Guardian, 24 May. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/24/the-snap-uk-threat-level- critical-manchester-bombing (Accessed: 24 May 2017).

Plummer, K. (2003) ‘Queers, bodies and postmodern sexualities: a note on revisiting the ‘sexual’ in symbolic interactionism’, Qualitative Sociology, 26(4), pp. 515-530.

406

Polit, D. and Beck, C. (2014). ‘Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice’. Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer.

Porter, C. (2014) ‘The black death and persecution of the Jews’, Saber and

Scroll, 3(1), Article 6. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.898.7024&rep=rep1

&type=pdf (Accessed: 19 August 2018).

Prager, D. and Telushkin, J. (1983) Why the Jews? The reason for antisemitism. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Prieto C.R. and Bishop, S.R. (2016a) ‘A measure of the concentration of rare events’. Scientific Reports, 6, p.32369.

Prieto C.R. and Bishop, S.R. (2016b) ‘A metric of the difference between perception of security and victimisation rates’. Crime Science, 5(1), pp. 1-15.

Prince, R. (1985) ‘The legacy of the Holocaust: psychohistorical themes in the second generation’ New York: Other Press.

Rahman, R. (2015) ‘Comparison of telephone and in-person interviews’.

Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research Journal, 1, pp.10-13.

407 Ranapurwala S.I., Berg M.T., Casteel, C. (2016) ‘Reporting crime victimisations to the police and the incidence of future victimsations: a longitudinal study’.

PLoS ONE, 11(7), pp. e0160072. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170072.

Random House Dictionary, (2017) Available at: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/orthodox-jew (Accessed: 25 May 2017).

Rich, D. (2016) ‘Anti-semitic incidents rise 11% since January’, Jewish News,

4 August. Available at: https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/anti-semitic- incidents-rise-by-11percent-in-2016/ (Accessed: 19 August 2018).

Riordan, S. (1999). ‘Indecent exposure: the impact upon the victim's fear of sexual crime’. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 10, pp. 309-316.

Rock, P. (2002) ‘On becoming a victim’, in C. Hoyle and R. Young (eds.) New

Visions of Crime Victims, pp. 1–22. Oxford: Hart.

Royall, J. (2016) ‘My inquiry can help fight the virus of anti-Semitism’. Available at: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/my-inquiry-can-help-fight-the-virus-of-anti- semitism/ (Accessed: 21 February 2017).

Ruijsbroek, A. et.al. (2015) ‘Social safety, self-rated general health and physical activity: changes in area crime, area safety feelings and the role of social cohesion’. Health Place, 31, pp. 39-45.

Sacks, J. (1993) ‘Crisis and Covenant: Jewish thought after the Holocaust’,

Manchester University Press, pp. 87-88.

408 Sagi, A. (2010) ‘The Holocaust and the foundation of Jewish Identity’, Azure,

42, pp. 39-57.

Sartre, J.P. (1948) ‘Anti-Semite and Jew’. New York: Schocken Books.

Savage, A. and Watson, N. (1991) ‘Anchoritic spirituality: Ancrene Wisse and associated works’. New York: Paulist Press.

Schoon, I. (2006) ‘Risk and resilience: adaptations in changing times’.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schreck, C.J. and Miller, J.M. (2003) ‘Sources of fear of crime at school: what is the relative contribution of disorder, individual characteristics and school security?’ Journal of School Violence, 2, pp. 57-79.

Schuster, M.A., Stein, B.D., Jaycox, L.H. Collins, R.L., Marshall, G.N. and Elliot,

M.N., (2001) ‘A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11,

2001, terrorist attacks’, New England Journal of Medicine, 345, pp. 1507-1512.

Sedgwick, P. (2013) BMJ 2013. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7511. (Accessed: 25 march 2019).

Shapland, J., Wilmore, J. and Duff, P. (1985) Victims in the criminal justice system. Gower: Aldershot.

409 Sharansky, N. (2004). ‘3D test of anti-semitism: demonization, double standards, delegitimization’, Jewish Political Studies Review, 16, pp. 3-4.

Shomrim UK (no date) Shomrim Commended by Hackney Police Borough

Commander.

Available at: http://www.londonshomrim.com/commendation.html (Accessed:

26 April 2018).

Shomrim UK (no date) US Secretary of State John Kerry praises Stamford Hill

Shomrim. Available at: http://www.londonshomrim.com/irf-annual- report.html (Accessed: 8 May 2018).

Shorter-Gooden, K. (2004). ‘Multiple resistance strategies: How African

American women cope with racism and sexism’. The Journal of Black

Psychology, 30(3), pp. 406–425.

Shulevitz, J. (2010) ‘How the Shabbath keeps the Jewish people’, Haaretz, 2

April, Available at http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2.209/how-the-sabbath- keeps-the-jewish-people-1.283841http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2.209/how- the-sabbath-keeps-the-jewish-people-1.283841 (Accessed: 19 August 2018).

Skogan, W. (1984) ‘Reporting crime to the police: The status of world research’.

Crime and Delinquency, 21, pp. 113-137.

Skogan, W. (1987) ‘The impact of victimisation on fear’, Crime and

Delinquency. 33, pp. 135-154.

410

Smith, W. (2002) ‘Descent into depravity’. Courier Mail, 5 October, p. 34.

Smith, H. (2017) ‘Police and prosecutors failing to protect British Jews from hate crime, new data suggests’, The Independent, 15 July. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crown-prosecution-service-cps- campaign-against-antisemitism-hate-crime-home-secretary-amber-rudd- a7842616.html. (Accessed: 19 August 2018).

Smyth, A. and Holian, R. 2008, 'Credibility issues in research from within organisations' in Sikes, P and Potts, A (ed.) Researching Education from the

Inside, Routledge, United Kingdom, pp. 33-47.

Solorzano, D. et. al., (2000) ‘Critical race theory, racial microaggressions and campus racial climate: The Experiences of African American college students’,

Journal of Negro Education, 69, pp.60-73.

Spalek, B. (2002) ‘Religious diversity, British Muslims, crime and victimisation’ in Spalek, B. (ed.) Islam, Crime and Criminal Justice. Cullompton: Willan, pp.

1-15.

Spalek, B. (2006) Crime victims: theory, policy and practice. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Spalek, B. (2008) Communities, identities and crime. Bristol: Polity Press.

411 Spalek, B. (2017) Crime Victims: theory, policy and practice. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Sparks, R., Girling E. and Loader, I. (2001) ‘Fear and Everyday Urban Lives’.

Urban Studies, 38, pp. 885-898.

Staetsky, L.D. and Boyd, J. (2014) ‘The exceptional case? perceptions and experiences of antisemitism among Jews in the United Kingdom’. Institute for

Jewish Policy Research (JPR Report). Available at: http://www.jpr.org.uk/documents/Perceptions_and_experiences_of_antisemiti sm_among_Jews_in_UK.pdf (Accessed: 22 March 2017).

Staetsky, L. and Boyd, J. (2015) ‘Strictly Orthodox rising: what the demography of British Jews tells us about the future of the community’. Institute for Jewish

Policy Research (JPR Report). Available at: http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object- uk285 (Accessed: 22 March 2017).

Staetsky, L. (2017) ‘Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: Key findings from the JPR survey of attitudes towards Jews and Israel’. Institute for Jewish

Policy Research (JPR Report). Available at: http://www.jpr.org.uk/documents/JPR.2017.Antisemitism_in_contemporary_Gr eat_Britain.pdf (Accessed: 4 December 2017).

Stanko, E. (1988) ‘Hidden violence against women’ in M. Maguire and J.

Pointing (eds.) Victims of crime a new deal? Milton Keynes: Open University

Press.

412

Stanko, E. (1990) ‘Everyday Violence: How Women and Men Experience

Sexual and Physical Danger’. London: Pandora.

Stanko, E. and Curry, P. (1997) ‘Homophobic Violence and the Self “At Risk”:

Interrogating the Boundaries’. Social and Legal Studies, 6(4), pp. 513-532.

Stanko, E. and Hobdell, K. (1993) ‘Assault on Men’, British Journal Criminology.

33(3) pp. 400-425.

Stryker, S. (1968) ‘Identity Salience and Role Performance’, Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 4(4), pp. 558–64.

Stryker, S. (1980) Symbolic interactionism: a social structural version. Menlo

Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

Sugarman, D. (2016) ‘Why didn’t MPs speak to the most Abused Jews’ 21

October. Available at: https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/why-didn-t- mps-speak-to-the-most-abused-jews-1.54234. (Accessed: 11 June 2018).

Sugarman, D. (2017) 'The man behind the Jewish guardians of Stamford Hill'

24 November. Available at: https://www.thejc.com/news/news-features/an- interview-with-rabbi-gluck-the-president-of-the-stamford-hill-shomrim-

1.448947 (Accessed: 26 January 2018).

Sullway, M. (2004) ‘Psychological perspectives on hate crime laws’,

Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10(3), pp. 250-292.

413

Swatt, M. et. al. (2013) ‘Fear of crime, incivilities and collective efficacy in four

Miami neighbourhoods’. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, pp.1-11.

Sweiry, A. (2014) Antisemitism in the lives of British Jews: experiences, fears and responses. Unpublished PhD thesis. Lancaster University.

Taguieff, P.A. (2004) ‘Rising from the muck: the new anti-semitism in Europe’.

Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986) ‘The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour’, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (eds.) Psychology of intergroup relationship. Monterey. CA: Brooks Cole, pp. 34-47.

Tatchell, P. (2002) ‘Some people are more equal than others’, in Iganski, P.

(ed.) The hate debate: should hate be punished as a crime? London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

Taylor, S. and Bogdan, R. (1998) ‘Introduction to qualitative research method’s.

3rd edn. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

The Guardian (2017) ‘UK universities urged to tackle rising ride of antisemitism on campus’ 18 February. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/18/uk-universities-urged- tackle-rising-tide-antisemitism-campus (Accessed: 9 January 2018).

414 The Guardian (2018) The Guardian view on Labour’s media policy: important contribution but more please. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/23/the-guardian-view- on-labours-media-policy-important-contribution-but-more-please. Accessed: 8

October 2018).

The Jerusalem Post (2017) ‘Jewish Woman, 70, attacked in London by assailant shouting “Jew” in Polish’, 10 Nov. Available at: http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Jewish-woman-70-attacked-in-London-by- assailant-shouting-Jew-in-Polish-513903 (Accessed: 25 January 2018).

The Jerusalem Post (2017) ‘Driver yells antisemitic comments at Orthodox

Jews in London’, 25 Dec. Available at http://www.jpost.com/International/London-driver-yells-antisemitic- comments-at-Orthodox-Jews-in-London-519967 (Accessed: 25 January

2018).

Thomson, S. (2012) ‘Freedom of expression and hatred of religion’. Ethnicities,

12(2). pp. 215-232.

Tiby, E. (2009) ‘Homophobic hate crimes in Sweden; questions and consequences’ in B. Perry and P. Iganski (eds) Hate Crimes: The

Consequences of Hate Crime (Volume 2) Westport CT, Praeger Publishers

Group, pp. 31-48.

415 Tommer, Y. and Fleischer, T. (2013) 'Scholars for Peace in the Middle

East, May 6, 2007', Canadian Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (CISA)

Blog, 16 December. Available at: http://canisa.org/blog/dina-porat-robert- wistrich-and-yehuda-bauer-on-the-new-antisemitism (Accessed: 18

June 2018).

Travis, A. (2016) ‘Lasting rise in hate crime after EU referendum, figures show’,

The Guardian, 7 September. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/07/hate-surged-after-eu- referendum-police-figures-show (Accessed: 31 October 2016).

True Vision (2010) Welcome to True Vision. Available at: http://report- it.org.uk/home (Accessed 30 January 2018).

Tseloni, A. (2007) ‘Fear of crime, perceived disorders and property crime: a multivariate analysis at the area level’. Crime Prevention Studies, 21, pp. 163–

185.

Tute, R. (2015) ‘Anti-semitic hate crimes rise by a massive 87 per cent in

Hackney’. 30 December. Available at: https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/crime-court/anti-semitic-hate-crimes- rise-by-a-massive-87-per-cent-in-hackney-1-4363117 (Accessed: 17 January

2019).

Tyler, T.R. (2011) ‘Trust and legitimacy: Policing in the USA and Europe’.

European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), pp. 254–266.

416

Universities UK (2016) Changing the culture: report of the Universities UK

Taskforce examining violence against women, harassment and hate crime affecting university students. Available at: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and- analysis/reports/Documents/2016/changing-the-culture.pdf (Accessed: 8

January 2018).

U.S. Department of Justice (2013) Uniform crime report – hate crime statistics.

Available at: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2013/topic- pages/victims/victims_final (Accessed: 22 March 2017).

Valins, O. (2000) ‘Institutionalised religion: sacred texts and Jewish spatial practice’. Geoforum, 31, pp. 575-586.

Wallengren, S. (2015) ‘The role of visibility for a minority’s exposure to (hate) crime and worry about crime – a study of the Traveller community’, International

Review of Victimology, 21(3), pp. 303–319.

Walklate, S. (2008) ‘Researching victims’ in R. King and E. Wincup Doing

Research on Crime and Justice (2nd edn.) Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp.

315-339.

Walklate, S. (2012). ‘Who is the victim of crime? Paying homage to the work of

Richard Quinney’. Crime Media Culture, 8(2), pp. 173-184.

417 Walters, M. (2011) ‘A general theories of hate crime? Strain, Doing Difference and Self Control’. Critical Criminology, 19(4) pp. 313-330.

Walters, M.A. (2013) ‘Why the Rochdale Gang should have been sentenced as

‘hate crime’ offenders’, Criminal Law Review, 2, pp. 131-44.

Watts, M. (1997) Xenophobia in united Germany. New York: St Martin’s Press.

Weinstein, J. (1992) ‘First amendment challenges to hate crime legislation: where’s the speech?’ Criminal Justice Ethics, 11(2), pp. 6-20.

Weiss, J. C., Ehrlich, H. and Larcom, B. (1991-92) ‘Ethnoviolence at work’, The

Journal of Intergroup Relationships, 18(4) pp. 28-29.

Welby, J. (no date) 'Vigilance and resolution: living antidotes to an ancient virus', in Holocaust Educational Trust and Community Security Trust (ed.)

Lessons learned: reflections on antisemitism and the Holocaust. Available at: https://www.het.org.uk/images/downloads/Lessons-Learned-HET-CST.pdf, pp. 10-11. (Accessed: 14 February 2018).

Wendehorst, S. (2011) British Jewry, Zionism, and the Jewish state, 1936-

1956. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wigerfelt, A., Wiferfelt, B. and Kiskinen, J. (2014) ‘When colour matters: policing and hate crime’. Social Inclusion, 2(1), pp. 1–11.

418 Wigerfelt, A., Wiferfelt, B (2016) ‘Media images and experiences of being a Jew in the Swedish city of Malmo’. Sage Open, pp. 1-14.

Wilcox, P., et. al., (2006) “Student Weapon Possession and the ‘fear of victimisation hypothesis’: unravelling the temporal order”. Justice Quarterly,

23(4), pp.502-529.

Wilkinson, M. (2015) ‘Revealed, Britain has foiled seven terror attacks in one year’, The Daily Telegraph, 16 November. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the- uk/11997853/Revealed-Britain-foils-seven-terror-attacks-in-just-six- months.html (Accessed: 2 November 2016).

Wilson, J. and Kelling, G. (1982) ‘The police and neighborhood safety: broken windows’. Atlantic Month, 127, pp.29-38.

Wisse, R. (1991) ‘Peretz and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture’, Seattle,

University of Washington Press.

Wistrich, R.S. (2008) ‘Antisemitism embedded in British culture’. Jerusalem

Center for Public Affairs. Available at: http://jcpa.org/article/antisemitism- embedded-in-british-culture/ (Accessed: 19 June 2018).

Yanow, D. (2000) Conducting interpretive police analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE.

419 Zempi, I. and Chakraborti, N. (2014) Islamophobia, victimisation and the veil,

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Zempi, I. (2014), ‘Unveiling Islamophobia: The victimisation of veiled Muslim

Women’, Palgrave: Macmillan.

Table of Cases:

Mandla v Dowell – Lee [1983] 2 A.C. 548 (HL).

420